Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

New Town, Peter Lee

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what proportion of the proposed new town Peter Lee is planned to be built on land under which a substantial seam of coal has already been taken; how much workable coal is estimated to be under the remainder; and whether there are any indications of subsidence.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): From the outset the need for co-ordinating the programme of coal extraction under the site with surface development has been recognised both by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Fuel and Power, and myself. An expert investigation of the resulting problems including subsidence has been made and the plan of the new town will have to take account of the results of this investigation. In the meantime I am unable to give a reply to the hon. Member's first two questions.

Mr. Vane: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman be more specific than that? Is he not aware that his timid answer will not allay the fears of the local population that many of the subsidence faults of the past will be repeated?

Mr. Silkin: If the hon. Gentleman would tell me on what point he would like me to be more specific I should be glad to be so. I am not aware of any anxiety on the part of the local population.

Mr. Vane: Did not the right hon. Gentleman see that in my Question I asked what proportion of the proposed

new town is planned to be built on land from under which a substantial seam of coal has taken?

Mr. Silkin: I thought it was to be inferred from my answer, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will read, that it is not yet possible to say.

Mr. Vane: No survey yet?

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what are the total expenses over the past year in connection with the proposed new town Peter Lee; and how much is represented by salaries.

Mr. Silkin: The expenditure of the Corporation is subject to general budgetary control and it is not my policy to seek to control their day-to-day activities. The Corporation was set up on 22nd March, 1948, and the information sought by the hon. Member will be available in the annual accounts for the year 1948–49 which, under the provisions of the New Towns Act, must be prepared by the Corporation and laid before each House of Parliament. The total amount issued to date to the Corporation to defray expenditure on capital and revenue account is £54,000. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the salaries of the higher posts which require my prior approval.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman, as a matter of interest, explain to the House why the new town has the engaging name of Peter Lee?

Mr. Silkin: In memory of a very great and celebrated person named Peter Lee who functioned in that area.

Hon. Members: What did he do?

Following is the information:

The staff appointments at Peter Lee approved by the Minister are as follow:




Salary Range


General Manager
…
£2,000–£2,250


Architect Planner
…
£2,000


Chief Engineer
…
£1,500–£2,000


Chief Estates Officer
 …
£1,500–£2,000


Chief Finance Officer
…
£1,250–£1,500


Legal Officer
…
£1,250–£1,500

Development Charges

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning when he proposes to separate


the payments made for development charges by industry and by owners of private property, respectively.

Mr. Silkin: The Central Land Board are analysing the amount of charge collected for particular types of development, and propose to summarise this information quarterly.

Colonel Hutchison: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that industries in these categories which are to be summarised will be shown separately? It is important for industry to know how much it is contributing to this total sum.

Mr. Silkin: Yes, that is so.

Fylingdales Moor (Access)

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he will give details of the public right of access to the 28,000 acres of the proposed national park area at Fylingdales Moor; and whether the military authorities are empowered to deny such access whenever they are so disposed.

Mr. Silkin: The public will be permanently excluded, in the interests of their own safety, only from the battle area of some 19,300 acres. As stated in the announcement of the decision of the Government, the public will not, on account of the requirements of military training, be excluded from the assembly area of some 8,000 acres.

Mr. Sharp: Does my right hon. Friend's reply mean that the public may go to the assembly area whenever they wish?

Mr. Silkin: There may be occasions when they will be excluded, but normally they will be free to roam about.

Mr. Sharp: Will my right hon. Friend consider now placing in the Library full details of the public rights of access in this area?

Mr. Silkin: I will certainly consider it, but it is inherent in the decision that was made, which is available.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Will the right hon. Gentleman take particular care to see that access is available during the holiday season?

Mr. Silkin: Subject to the requirements of training. It is not possible to suspend training during holidays.

Herstmonceaux Castle

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what steps he has taken to ensure that the development carried out by the Admiralty in the vicinity of Herstmonceaux Castle preserves the beauty of the castle and park.

Mr. Silkin: My Department has been represented in all discussions relating to the Admiralty use of this castle and park. The local planning authority will see the plans as they are drawn up by the Admiralty architects and my Department will be kept fully informed.

Commander Maitland: Is it not a fact that there has already been considerable development; have the plans of that development been submitted to the right hon. Gentleman's Department; and could the right hon. Gentleman tell me what development charge has been levied in this case?

Mr. Silkin: The hon. and gallant Member is asking a lot of questions which are not on the Order Paper.

Commander Maitland: That is what the Minister is there for—to answer questions.

Mr. Silkin: The plans have not been submitted. Although there has been a good deal of representation about them in the Press, they have not yet been submitted.

Mr. Vane: But the stuff is there.

Mr. Silkin: In any case, it is quite impossible to answer questions about a development charge.

Brigadier Head: Is the Minister aware that already Herstmonceaux Castle from being a very beautiful spot has become a blot on the landscape, whatever may be said about the plans?

Mr. Molson: Have any works been begun there before the plans have been approved?

Mr. Silkin: Works are not the subject of this Question.

House, Old Bolingbroke, (Alterations)

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning on what grounds a proposal of Mr. Scarcliffe of the Old Police House, Old Bolingbroke, near Spilsby, Lincolnshire, to convert his house into a fish friers business was turned down by the Town and Country Planning authorities.

Mr. Silkin: I am unaware of the grounds on which this proposal was refused. The decision was the responsibility of the Spilsby Rural District Council acting on behalf of the County Council and no doubt the reasons were conveyed to Mr. Scarcliffe. He has now given notice that he wishes to appeal to me against the decision.

Commander Maitland: Will rather more attention be given to him than is given to Hurstmonceux Castle?

Mr. Silkin: He will be given a very fair hearing, which is what we are doing with Hurstmonceux.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that although the matter is not one for his Department the appeal is being made to him?

Mr. Silkin: It is an appeal against the decision of the local authority. That appeal has to be made to me under the terms of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.

Blitzed Cities (Steel Allocation)

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what quota of steel was allocated to his Department for use in reconstruction areas of bombed cities during 1949; and the names of the cities to which an allocation is being made, together with the amount allocated in each case.

Mr. Silkin: The total amount of steel allocated to the reconstruction of blitzed cities in 1949 is 5,540 tons. This takes no account of any steel which may be allocated to industrial, residential, or other projects sponsored by other Departments, and in some of the blitzed towns the available building resources are almost wholly engaged on such other projects. The total steel within my control has been divided among various blitzed

towns on the basis of their requirements, as notified to me by the local authorities; and in making the division I have had particular regard to the question whether projects are ready to start and labour is likely to be available. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the detailed figures for which my hon. Friend asks.

Mrs. Middleton: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will do all within his power to get the allocation of steel for reconstruction areas increased at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Silkin: I should like to see how local authorities get on with what they have got before I ask for more.

Following are the figures:



Tons


Bristol
390


Coventry
750


Exeter
450


Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft, Norwich
500


Kingston-upon-Hull
450


Manchester
200


Plymouth
750


Portsmouth
750


Sheffield
400


Southampton
270


South Shields
180


Swansea
75

Note.—Steel is being provided for the City of London under a separate arrangement.

National Parks

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he will give details of the national parks which have been taken over by the Government already; what others are contemplated; and whether the control of all such national parks will be under the jurisdiction of national committees as recommended by the Hobhouse Report, so as to serve the best interests of the country as a whole.

Mr. Silkin: No national parks have been taken over by the Government nor is it contemplated by the Hobhouse Report that they should be. As regards the second part of the Question, my hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate the terms of the Bill which was promised in the Gracious Speech from the Throne.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: In drafting the Bill will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, unless a reasonable proportion of members of local parks committees is appointed by the Minister to the national commission to represent the users who are not resident in the national parks


areas there will be very considerable disappointment on all sides of the House and in the country?

Mr. Henry Strauss: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that when the Government say that they are going to introduce such legislation it is an implied promise that they will not sanction development which will be greatly injurious to the parks when they are created?

Mr. Silkin: Apart from any implied promise, I should say that that was a perfectly proper attitude for the Government to adopt.

Mr. Vane: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, before he presents the Bill, that the people of Cumberland and Westmorland, who are expecting to be included in one of these national parks, resent very strongly the idea that they will be bossed by a commission in London? They want control to remain local.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not the case that much land designated for national parks is now in the possession of the Government—for instance, Fylingdales Moor?

War Damage, Hull

Mr. Odey: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether, in view of the difficulties which are being experienced in restoring normal civic life in Hull owing to the extensive nature of the damage caused by enemy action, he will relax the regulations governing the reconstruction of war damaged premises, where these have the approval of the town planning authority.

Mr. Silkin: I am not wholly clear what the hon. Member has in mind but I am making inquiries in this matter and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. Odey: Does not the Minister realise that the City of Hull is at present an outstanding example of Socialist misrule; and is he not prepared to do something to assist the people of Hull to repair the ravages of war?

Mr. Silkin: I must confess that when I read this Question I did not gather that was what the hon. Gentleman had in mind.

Mr. Odey: Is it not perfectly clear from the Question?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Industrial Diseases, North Staffordshire

Dr. Barnett Stross: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many men in the North Staffordshire coalfield have been examined since 5th July, 1948, by the Silicosis Medical Board; in how many cases have the men been advised that they are suffering from pneumoconiosis or silicosis or silicotuberculosis, and how many of these have been further advised that they may continue their former work or alternative work; and in what instances had this advice been accepted.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Steele): During the period from 5th July, 1948, to 31st December, 1948, 28 miners employed in North Staffordshire were examined by the Pneumoconiosis Medical Board under the Industrial Injuries Act, and 23 were found to be suffering from pneumoconiosis. Of these, nine were advised that they could continue in the coalmining industry under approved conditions, and five said they proposed to do so. During the same period, 35 men were examined in connection with claims under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. Of these, 15 were found to be suffering from the disease to a dangerous degree and were suspended.

Dr. Stross: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether it is an accepted principle that in all cases where men are advised that they may return to work they will be protected against excessive dust in the mine which contributed to or caused the original pneumoconiosis?

Mr. Steele: The medical board advise these people that they can return to work under approved conditions, and we are in consultation with the National Coal Board and its mine inspectors to ensure that these approved conditions will be maintained.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many men and women have been examined by the Silicosis Medical Board since 5th July, 1948, in the pottery industry in North Staffordshire; how many of those examined have been found to be suffering from silicosis or silico-tuberculosis;


how many of those found suffering have been advised that they may return to their former work or alternative work; and how many have accepted this advice.

Mr. Steele: During the period from 5th July, 1948, to 31st December, 1948, 489 persons employed in the pottery industry in North Staffordshire were examined, either on a claim to benefit or on an initial or periodical examination, by the Pneumoconiosis Medical Board, of whom 40 were found to be suffering from pneumoconiosis. None of them were advised to return to their former work; but nine of them, being skilled men, have said they intend to do so.

Dr. Stross: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether it is intended to see that the men have some protection after return to work, particularly in view of the fact that silicosis amongst potters can advance very rapidly, even when such protection is given, and obviously very much more actively when they are not so protected?

Mr. Steele: None of the men who have pneumoconiosis is advised to return to work. It lies with the medical board whether or not to suspend the men. There are no similar conditions in pottery as in mining, for which we have approved conditions.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: If it is impossible for potters and some miners to return to their former occupations, can consideration be given to providing them with alternative employment? Is experience in other parts of the country being made available to the area by means of the setting up of disabled persons schemes?

Mr. Steele: That is very much in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour who is concerned with that aspect of the problem.

Funds (Transferred Assets)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of National Insurance (1) how much, to the latest available date, of the sum of £100,000,000 which is to be transferred from the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund to the National Insurance Fund has been transferred; and of that amount how much has been spent;
(2) how much of the assets of the health and unemployment insurance schemes and the contributory pensions systems, respectively, have been transferred to the National Insurance Fund; and of these how much has been spent.

Mr. Steele: The whole of the capital assets of the Health and Unemployment Insurance and Contributory Pensions Schemes were transferred by virtue of Section 66 of the National Insurance Act, 1946, to the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund on the 5th July, 1948, and a sum of £100 million was transferred from that Fund to the National Insurance Fund on the same date. Apart from this transfer, no payment has been made out of the assets transferred to either of these Funds.

Sir W. Smithers: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that all this money, which was the result of the thrifty saving of poor but freedom-loving people, is being poured down the Socialist drain? In view of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced yesterday—that the £ is worth only 7s. ld.—what is the use of going on paying benefits with pieces of paper which, under this Government, continually become more and more worthless?

Mr. Steele: The extent of the assets is due to the full employment policy of the Government being successful.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: It is due to Marshall Aid and nothing else.

Old Age Pensions

Mr. Austin: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he is aware of the increased hardship caused to old age pensioners by the rise in the cost of living since October, 1946; and if he will give an estimate of the extra sum involved in the increase of the basic pension to 30s. per week.

Mr. Steele: As regards the first part of the Question it is open to any old age or retirement pensioner whose resources are insufficient for his needs to apply for supplementary assistance under the improved scale of National Assistance introduced in July last. In reply to the second part, the net additional cost of the change including appropriate increases for wives of pensioners would be about £35 million a year now, rising to about £60 million a year in 20 years' time.

Provisions and Regulations (Leaflets)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of National Insurance if, for the convenience of hon. Members and civil servants, he will issue a comprehensive booklet incorporating the leaflets issued by his Department explaining the provisions and regulations of the National Insurance and National Health Acts.

Mr. Steele: My right hon. Friend has it in mind to issue such booklets about the National Insurance and Industrial Injuries schemes at an appropriate time but it would be premature to do so yet. The question whether there should be a similar publication relating to the Health Service would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Mr. Davies: Does not my hon. Friend think that now is the appropriate time, during the initial stages when many problems about National Insurance are arising and hon. Members are continually being asked questions by their constituents? Will he urge upon his right hon. Friend the need for such a booklet?

Mr. Steele: I appreciate the part about the questions because I get many questions from hon. Members every day. However, we have a very good series of leaflets dealing with these problems. A Question about a publication covering them all is rather premature because certain very important regulations have still to come before the House and, as hon. Members know, the question of hospital deductions is still under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Building Labour, Scotland

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour what new proposals he has for increasing the supply of building labour in Scotland.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): It is not our policy at present to take any special steps to increase the size of the building labour force as a whole.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the building force in Scotland is rapidly becoming depleted and that if no measures are taken the housing programme will slow down? Will he give this further consideration?

Mr. Isaacs: I am not aware that the facts are as stated by my hon. Friend. The position is—I shall be dealing with this in a little more detail in reply to another Question—that it is the spread-over of the total manpower which is important.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister know that we are short of 800 joiners in Scotland?

Mr. Isaacs: I am not aware of the fact.

Mr. Scollan: Can my right hon. Friend tell us why the very successful building trades training scheme at Hillington was stopped when we still needed the men?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. The scheme was stopped because there appeared to be no possibility of absorbing all the men who are being trained. If Mr. Speaker will permit, perhaps such supplementary questions will be put to me after Question No. 29 on which I am dealing more fully with that phase of the situation.

Mr. Willis: asked the Minister of Labour in which branches of the building industry in Scotland there is a shortage of labour for house building at the present time; and what steps are being taken to obtain additional men.

Mr. Isaacs: There have been difficulties about meeting demands for certain craftsmen. These have been due to the large proportion of houses now at the finishing stage rather than to any long term shortage of particular craftsmen. The position has very considerably improved and outstanding demands for craftsmen are only about half what they were three months ago.

Mr. Willis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the rate of completion of houses is still being held up by lack of men in the finishing trades in Scotland? Would he not consult with the Secretary of State for Scotland about this matter with a view to getting more men, because these houses are urgently required?

Mr. Isaacs: We are doing that, but so many houses were pushed forward at one time to a certain point that, when they were ready for the finishing stages by painters, plasterers and so on, they had to wait until those men had completed their jobs. It would have taken a long time to train other plasterers, and


it would have been unwise to have done so and then to have found so many surplus men when the job was completed.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Minister deny that there is a serious shortage of plasterers in the West of Scotland, and what steps is he taking to remedy that situation?

Mr. Isaacs: We have taken sufficient steps to cut the outstanding vacancies to half of what they were. It would take a year to train plasterers, so we are en deavouring to induce the people in the area to transfer to the first jobs waiting to be completed.

Mr. Willis: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he contemplates that the rate of completion is to be reduced? If so, then it should be pushed up to keep the present flow going.

Mr. Isaacs: No, the rate of completion should be increased now because we are getting the labour force into a better balanced position.

Training Scheme (Grant)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will reconsider his refusal to make a grant under the Further Education and Training Scheme to a young man, particulars of whom have been sent to him, who has been refused a grant on the grounds that his professional training prior to enlistment was on a practical rather than an academic basis.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): No, Sir. As has been explained to the hon. Member, this case cannot be accepted as one in which training for a professional career was prevented or interrupted by the applicant's war service.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that ruling is founded simply on the fact that the applicant's training began on a practical basis, and that before leaving school he was intended for this profession? Is he further aware that this rigid and narrow interpretation of the regulations in this and other cases is causing the gravest disquiet?.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I resent the accusation that I have been rigid or narrow in the interpretation of these

regulations. I have attempted to interpret them most generously. I have stretched them as far as I can. I would point out to the House that these regulations were laid down under the Coalition Government, and I am trying to apply them fairly. In this case, no matter how I look at it, I cannot bring this young man within the scheme.

Mr. Lipson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions to those who are responsible for administering these grants that it is the wish of Parliament that the emphasis should be on giving the grants wherever possible instead of, as at present, trying to find excuses for not giving them?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The Department does not look for excuses not to give grants. I am afraid that the position now is that the Department looks for excuses to give the grants. I assure the House that in every case where there is reasonable doubt the matter goes to Lord Reading's Tribunal and that Tribunal decides, as between the applicant and the Ministry, whether the case is within the scheme.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the unsatisfactory attitude of the Department, as exemplified in this and other cases, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Mineworkers (Transfers)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give an assurance that employment exchanges will facilitate the employment in other industries of mineworkers who wish to leave the coal industry when it becomes a closed shop.

Mr. Isaacs: If this situation should arise I will consider it.

Sir J. Mellor: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman is able to give the straightforward answer of "Yes" to this Question, or else we are entitled to have the greatest suspicion of his intentions?

Mr. Isaacs: If the hon. Gentleman will look at his Question he will see that he says:
When it becomes a closed shop.
I do not know when that will be, but if it arises I will consider it.

Remploy Factory, Newport

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Labour when the building of the factory for disabled workers in Newport will commence; how long it is anticipated before it will be ready for occupation; how many workers it will accommodate; and what work it is proposed to undertake.

Mr. Isaacs: Great difficulty has been experienced in finding a suitable site for a Remploy Factory in Newport. A site which appears suitable is now under consideration and in the meantime it is not possible to say more than that it is intended to provide for a minimum of 100 workers.

Mr. Freeman: In view of the fact that there are still 500 or 600 unemployed disabled workers in Newport, will my right hon. Friend make every effort to facilitate the provision of the factory?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. We are very anxious to provide the factory. We have had difficulty in finding premises. Although we can provide for a minimum of 100 of these people, I cannot say what trades are likely to be employed, but we shall not be satisfied until we can cover them all.

Hostel, Ilkley

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Wells House Hydro, Ilkley, which has been converted into a hostel for textile workers, has been empty for more than a year; and when this valuable accommodation will be put to some useful purpose.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I appreciate the desirability of releasing properties of this kind for their normal purposes at the earliest possible moment. I regret that I am not yet in a position to give a definite reply regarding the Wells House Hydro. This building was prepared for occupation as a hostel for women textile workers in September, 1948. Owing to the decline in the number of European Volunteer Workers available from the Continent the hostel has not yet been utilised. Recruitment from other sources of foreign labour is now under consideration and the hostel will be required to house these workers if our efforts are successful.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Will the Minister say whether the textile trade unions are still preventing German textile workers from coming to this country, and, if they are, and the Government cannot persuade them to alter their attitude, will the right hon. Gentleman hand over this hostel to the local authority so that it can help to relieve the housing situation in Ilkley?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir. For some time we have been in negotiation with the American authorities in the American zone of Germany, where there is a large number of Volksdeutsche. Once that is concluded, we hope to have some from there. Belgian unemployed textile workers are also the subject of discussion for an agreement between the Belgian Government and ourselves. None of the textile unions has offered objections to these two sources if only we can get access to them.

Aircraft Factory, Feltham (Closing)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any plan for finding skilled work for the engineers now becoming unemployed owing to the closing of the General Aircraft factory at Feltham.

Mr. Isaacs: The employment exchange service has been carefully planned to assist redundant workers to obtain employment suitable to their skill and experience. It is designed to meet, in its normal operation, just such a situation as this.

Mr. Keeling: Yes, but what about the factory? Will the Government give an assurance that they will not encourage the conversion of this factory into mere storage space, which would give no employment for the hundreds of skilled men involved, and have they considered using it for aircraft maintenance?

Mr. Isaacs: Those questions ought to be put to another Minister. I can only deal with the service of employment within the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Mikardo: Is the Minister aware that these private fluctuations in employment in the aircraft manufacturing industry in Feltham, Reading and elsewhere will not be obviated until this industry is run in a planned way under public ownership?

Mr. Bramall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this creates a particularly difficult situation in an area affected by the movement of the Leyland Works from Kingston?

Mr. Isaacs: The question I was asked was, what steps were being taken to find skilled work for these men? I was saying that we are doing what we can to find appropriate work for them in accordance with their service. These other questions are not for me to answer.

Disabled Persons, Cardiff

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the numbers of disabled persons acting as car attendants in Cardiff; whether he is aware of the conditions of service under which these people are employed; and whether he will take steps to secure minimum requirements for the protection of these people.

Mr. Isaacs: I understand that 16 full-time and six part-time attendants are employed in public car parks in Cardiff. They are all disabled men. The terms and conditions of service are governed by a national trade union agreement. Any representations the men may wish to make should be made to their employer either direct or through the trade union concerned.

Wool Textile Mills, West Riding (Conditions)

Mr. Sharp: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give details of the results of the survey of wool factory conditions in the West Riding of Yorkshire; what recommendations were made; and in what way these are being implemented.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The special survey which I assume my hon. Friend has in mind was made by factory inspectors last Summer to collect up to date information as to various health and welfare conditions in wool textile mills, and not with a view to making recommendations. The survey of last Summer shows that improvements in health and welfare arrangements, on lines subsequently recommended by a joint committee, had already been made or were actively in hand at a considerable number of mills.

Polish Resettlement Corps

Mr. Bramall: asked the Minister of Labour what plans his Department has for the future of those members of the Polish Resettlement Corps for whom no employment can be found by reason of age or infirmity.

Mr. Ness Edwards: On termination of their approved period of service, unemployed members of the Polish Resettlement Corps are entitled to all the social security benefits that are available to British subjects.

Mr. Bramall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a considerable resentment in the country, which may give rise to undesirable general anti-Polish feeling, against the fact that Polish people who are old and infirm are being kept on at high rates of pay, whereas similar British men who cannot obtain employment are on the comparatively low social insurance benefits?

Mr. Ness Edwards: There is no basis for that view. These men volunteered to join the Polish Resettlement Corps for a maximum period of two years. When they have served their two years they are treated as ordinary people and are discharged from the Corps. If they cannot find employment—and employment is not found for them—they are treated as ordinary British citizens.

Mr. Bramall: Could my right hon. Friend say when the time will have expired when the last of these men to join the Corps will have completed his period of service?

Mr. Ness Edwards: They are coming out of the Polish Resettlement Corps all the time. It is hoped that before the end of this year even these elderly people will have concluded their period in the Corps, and then they will be treated as ordinary British citizens.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Housing

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when power will be given to local authorities to allow private houses to be built.

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will resume the granting of licences for the building of double cottar houses.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. J. Robertson): The issue of licences for private houses including double cottar houses is at present authorised where the houses are urgently required for miners, agricultural workers, and other special needs. How soon this control can be relaxed in favour of other classes of the community depends on the progress made in completing houses already approved.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Is the Under-Secretary aware that on 21st December he indicated to the Aberdeenshire Housing Committee that it might be possible to raise this ban in April, and can he comment on that?

Mr. Robertson: The position is being watched closely from month to month, and it may be possible, after the two bad building months of February and March have passed, to look at it more favourably.

Commander Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average time now taken to build a permanent traditional house in Scotland.

Mr. Robertson: Owing to the varying circumstances of different housing schemes, some of which have houses on which no work whatever was done for periods in 1947 because of material shortages, no reliable average figure can be given. With the improved supply of materials for houses under construction, however, and the increasing rate of completion there is evidence that the rate of building has improved in recent months.

Commander Galbraith: Is the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Works has stated the time it takes to complete houses in England? Why could the hon. Gentleman not give similar information in regard to Scotland?

Mr. Robertson: As I have stated, the position is rather different in Scotland due to the fact that a larger number of houses were under construction there. Therefore, the comparison could not be made accurately.

Commander Galbraith: Will the hon. Gentleman give the comparative figures between the two?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Do not the answers of the hon. Gentleman really mean that an average time could quite well be given but that that average time is very long indeed?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what basis the four firms who are to be allowed to tender for the erection of Swedish timber houses in the seven Highland counties to which they have been allocated were selected; and if he is satisfied that there are no other large Scottish contractors capable of carrying out this work.

Mr. Robertson: These firms, all of whom have the large-scale organisations necessary for this programme, were selected because of their experience of building in the Highlands and Islands, and of building prefabricated timber houses. Since the programme is limited to 1,000 houses, it was thought that a list of four contractors from whom local authorities could obtain competitive offers would suffice.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many large firms who are at present carrying out contract work for local authorities, to the entire satisfaction of those local authorities, are precluded from tendering because of this regulation; and does he not think it more right and proper that in a case of this kind the Government should confine their activities to drawing up an approved list of contractors from whom the local authorities could make their choice?

Mr. Robertson: It was considered necessary to draw up the contracts in this way in the interests of speed. The letting out of contracts would have delayed the operation, which was rather urgent.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Is it not the case that Weir's Housing Corporation, of Coatbridge, in whose factory £200,000 has been spent on plant, can produce a far better and very much cheaper house than one of Swedish timber?

Mr. Robertson: That question does not arise.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answers to this Question, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible time.

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland which types of nontraditional permanent houses it is proposed to continue to authorise in Scotland.

Mr. Robertson: Except for types which make heavy demands on steel and other scarce materials, my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider any proposals for non-traditional houses which local authorities, authorised to proceed with new houses, may put before him providing that they are competitive in price.

Mr. Willis: Does not my hon. Friend consider that it would be of much greater advantage, from the point of view of production and of reducing price, for the number of types to be limited and the orders to be given on a much larger scale and not in mere driblets from the local authorities?

Mr. Ross: Will the Joint Under-Secretary take into account also the actual performance in building and completion of houses by the various factory organisations?

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many tenants of Scottish Special Housing Association houses have applied for assistance under the Rent Rebate Scheme; and how many have been assisted.

Mr. Robertson: Up to date, 98 tenants have applied for assistance under the Association rent relief scheme and, of these, 10 have been assisted.

Mr. Ross: Would the Under-Secretary agree, from the figures given, that the rents of these houses are far too high, judging from the number of people applying for rebates, and, by the few who have been given rebates, that there is something far wrong with the rebates system?

Mr. Robertson: I cannot agree that there is anything wrong with the rebates system. A number of the people turned

down were turned down because of the income to the family being above the standard generally accepted.

Commander Galbraith: Is there not a means test in existence?

Mr. Robertson: Of course, there has to be some regard to the total income of the family. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. Frank Byers: Is it not a fact that the Labour Party have condemned the household means test in public for years?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Commander Galbraith: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether it is a household means test, or not?

Mr. Robertson: Of course, it is not a household means test.

Mr. Scollan: Have the rents no relation to the cost of these buildings; and is my hon. Friend aware that the Special Housing Association have erected some of the worst modern slums there are in the whole of Scotland?

Mr. Robertson: I would like to take the opportunity of denying the latter part of that question. The Scottish Special Housing Association are building some of the finest houses in Scotland, but, obviously, the cost factor has some relation to the rents charged for these houses.

Fencing, Alyth Commonty

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that unauthorised fencing has been erected through Alyth Commonty; and what action he proposes to take to have this removed.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I understand that a fence has been erected in the neighbourhood indicated in the Question. Whether this infringes any rights is a question which only a court of law can decide; my right hon. Friend has no authority to intervene.

Press Notice (Correction)

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that it was necessary to issue seven corrections to the Press Notice on Research on Agricultural Engineering,


issued from St. Andrew's House on 14th January, 1949; that these corrections were not issued until three days after publication of the original document; and what action he proposes to take to improve the procedure of his Department in such matters.

Mr. T. Fraser: Of the seven corrections referred to six consisted of the substitution of one letter for another in the names of five English members of the Committee which had been inaccurately teleprinted; the seventh was a rectification of a slip in the description of the title of the Committee. The Press notice, the substance of which was unaffected, was issued on Friday, 14th January; the trivial errors were discovered on Saturday, 15th January after its publication in the daily papers; and the correcting slip was issued on the Monday, 17th January primarily for the benefit of the weekly newspapers.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the enormously swollen staffs in Government Departments, are there not enough people to see that these things go out correctly on the first day? Secondly, may I have an answer to the last part of my Question, as to what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do to improve the procedure in such matters?

Mr. Fraser: There are no steps my right hon. Friend needs to take to improve the procedure. These slips were small and insignificant, as I have indicated—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and did not affect the substance of the statement. Very largely the slips involved the insertion of a "C" for a "G" in the initials of members of the Committee and I do not think that was a serious matter.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Why did it not go out correctly the first time?

Police Training College (Commandant)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the nature of the duties attached to the position of Commandant of the Scottish Police College.

Mr. T. Fraser: The Commandant's main duties will be to organise training courses for the various classes of students

at the College, to arrange for the services of suitably qualified instructors and lecturers, to supervise accounting and other arrangements, and generally to ensure that the College is an efficient establishment. In organising the College and its training courses he will be working in close association with an Advisory Committee of which the Chairman is H.M. Inspector of Constabulary and the other members are police officers representative of all ranks of the Police Service.

Mr. Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether this post has been given to an Air Vice-Marshal with no experience of police duties and what steps are being taken to instruct this officer in the nature of his duties before he starts instructing the rest of the police force?

Mr. Fraser: My right hon. Friend answered a Question last week in which he set out the reasons why he had appointed this individual. He had been selected by a selection board which was very representative; he set out the nature of its representativeness in his answer last week. He had no reason to decline to appoint this person, who seems to be eminently suited to the duties which have been assigned to him.

Mr. Scollan: Are we to take it that this is a new policy of the Government and may we now expect a Chief Constable to be placed in charge of the R.A.F.? Obviously it is a case of square pegs in round holes because they have got influence.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in view of the fact that this officer has obviously, through his long training, all the qualifications required for this post, this is a very suitable appointment?

Captain Marsden: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if this appointment was influenced by the fact that the appointment of a military officer in command of the English school has proved such a very great success?

Mr. William Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the applicants for the post of commandant of the Scottish police training centre had police experience in England; and how many in Scotland.

Mr. T. Fraser: Of the applicants eleven had police experience in England, seven had police experience in Scotland, and one had police experience in both countries.

Mr. Ross: Are we to take it that no policemen in Britain possess the qualifications necessary for such a post and that in future we can expect the higher branches of the Police Force in Scotland, if not in England, to be chosen from the preserves of ex-Service personnel?

Mr. Fraser: It would be quite wrong to make any such assumptions.

Mr. Willis: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction with the fact that none of the people who had previously been considered fit to act as heads of training colleges were given these appointments, and that such actions are very discouraging to the police force?

Mr. Ross: Could the Joint Under Secretary say what effect he thinks this will have on police recruitment, which at present is disappointingly slow?

Mr. Fraser: None at all, I should think.

Dental Service

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that dentists are refusing to relieve patients suffering from toothache, are fixing dates for extractions, and sending patients away until they can enlarge a simple extraction into a general overhaul with an enlarged account for the service; and what steps he will take to impress on dentists the immediate necessity of relieving pain.

Mr. Robertson: Dentists are empowered to give all necessary emergency treatment for the immediate relief of dental pain and I am not aware that they are refusing to do so. If, however, the hon. Member will give me particulars of any cases she has in mind, I shall have inquiries made.

Mrs. Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not one complaint but a great many complaints and that they are widespread; that it is a practice of dentists to turn patients away or to relieve pain only if they deposit 7s. 6d. or 10s.; that in one case brought to my

notice this week the dentist asked for £3 for the extraction and replacement of a tooth; and will he try to arrange hours in the morning or the evening for such extractions to take place?

Mr. Robertson: I should like to have particulars of the cases which my hon. Friend has quoted. We have under consideration at present the possibility of making certain hours available for this purpose.

Mr. John Lewis: Would my hon. Friend be interested to know that I hold a letter from the Operative Cotton Spinners and Twiners Associaton, in my constituency, complaining that one of their members has been treated in precisely the same way; and in view of this will he consult, or ask his right hon. Friend to consult, the Minister of Health with a view to dealing with this matter as soon as possible in both England and Scotland?

Mr. G. Thomas: And Wales.

Doctors, Lanarkshire (Basic Salary)

Mr. Timmons: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for basic salary have been received from doctors in Lanarkshire; how many of these applications have been approved in whole or in part; and how many refused.

Mr. Robertson: Forty-five applications for the fixed annual payment have been made to the Lanarkshire Executive Council. The Council has given its consent in 10 cases and has refused consent in 34 cases; one is under consideration.

Mr. Timmons: Is my hon. Friend aware that the personnel of this committee who are dealing with these cases were entirely and vigorously opposed to the question of a basic salary, and will he further consider putting this matter in the hands of a committee of laymen?

RECRUITING SPEECHES (BROADCASTS)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the national and non-party character of the speeches, he will invite Members of Opposition parties to give recruiting speeches on the B.B.C.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. I have already addressed such an invitation to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and I am happy to say that he has accepted on behalf of his party. Further details will be announced when the necessary arrangements with the B.B.C. have been completed.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in home affairs, as in foreign affairs, it is deeds, not words, which are important; and that if the Government are seeking to carry out a policy of national unity, it is deeds on which they will be judged, and that even vermin are proud to be British?

The Prime Minister: I thought there was general satisfaction that the Leader of the Opposition was to speak some words on this matter. The hon. Member seems to be deprecating that.

WALES (NATIONAL THEATRE)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to make an announcement offering financial support for the establishment of a national theatre for Wales.

The Prime Minister: The proposals of the Government for facilitating the provision of a national theatre in London were made as a result of an approach to them by a body of trustees having at their disposal substantial resources already collected for this purpose and a site upon which to build. Similar evidence of public support elsewhere would be needed before we could consider taking any further action. In any case I do not think it follows that because the State is helping to provide a national theatre in the heart of the Commonwealth, similar assistance should necessarily be given at the taxpayers' expense elsewhere.

Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I had no desire to annoy him and that the thought of having his own theatre here in London did not disturb me in the slightest? Is he also aware that we shall welcome the implied assurance that if we can raise some money he will do his best to get some more?

The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that he did not annoy me at all, but I would ask him to read very carefully the statement I have made, which was carefully prepared.

Mr. Peter Freeman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is already a repertory theatre in Newport, which needs great help, is providing national plays and is an effort which has already been started?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Tobacco Tokens (Disabled Ex-Service Men)

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend to blinded and other 100 per cent. disabled ex-Service men the special concession of cheaper cigarettes and tobacco granted to old age pensioners.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): I fear that the objections which have been stated on various previous occasions are still decisive.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least consider extending this in the first instance to blinded ex-Service men, who are a comparatively small number?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid not. If the hon. and gallant Member will read the many explanations given on the matter he will see why.

Mr. Edward Davies: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there are many aged persons who do not draw the statutory benefit, but are in receipt of a small annuity, who have a fair entitlement to this consideration? Will he bear that in mind?

Sir S. Cripps: I am always prepared to bear anything in mind, but as a practical matter of administration this cannot be extended.

Foreign Nationals (Travel Facilities)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost of the warrants for free travel and at half fare issued to Poles and other foreigners during the past year; and why they are not charged the ordinary fare.

Sir S. Cripps: As the answer includes a number of figures, I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hurd: At the same time, will the Chancellor undertake to keep a close watch on these free travel vouchers, so that the generosity of the British public is not abused?

Sir S. Cripps: I always keep a close watch on the expenditure of money.

Mr. Tiffany: Could my right hon. and learned Friend give an answer to the last part of the Question, which has obviously nothing to do with the figures he is to circulate?

Sir S. Cripps: I think that will be found in the answer which I am circulating.

Following is the answer:

During the year 1947–48, the latest year for which figures are available, warrants for travel, free and at half fare, were issued to Poles at a cost of about £477,000. Of this figure, about £469,000 represented the cost of travel on leave, under normal service arrangements, by members of the Polish Resettlement Corps which is now being disbanded; it excludes the cost of travelling on duty by members of that Corps.

In the same period, warrants for free travel were issued to persons brought to this country under the European Volunteer Worker Scheme, at a cost of about £170,000.

Certain facilities for cheap travel are available for workers, whether British or foreign, placed in employment in essential industries. The figures given above do not include the cost of travel by Polish and other foreign workers under these arrangements.

Purchase Tax

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the taxation anomaly as between petrol and electrically driven invalid chairs as referred to in correspondence from the British Rheumatic Association which has been sent to him; and if, in view of the hardships caused by this anomaly, before his next Budget he will review the matter with a view to removing the purchase tax on petrol driven invalid chairs.

Sir S. Cripps: All invalid carriages are exempt from tax, irrespective of the motive power. The petrol driven vehicle referred to in the correspondence is not an invalid carriage, but a small motor car.

Wing-Commander Millington: is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the petrol-driven vehicle referred to in this correspondence is made to measure by a manufacturing company on a specific doctor's prescription and is in every respect an invalid car?

Sir S. Cripps: I am sure it is not. An ordinary motor car body could be made to fit any individual, but that does not turn it into an invalid car.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: If the individual is provided with a doctor's certificate to say that the petrol-driven vehicle is only to be used by the invalid, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman then consider freeing it from Purchase Tax?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that is not possible from an administrative point of view. The question of re-sale comes in.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Are there any known instances of this type?

Sir S. Cripps: I understand a large mass manufacture of cars of this sort is likely to be undertaken for ordinary use.

Universities (Ex-Service Students)

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the proportions of ex-Service students and those coming straight from school at Oxford University, Cambridge and all the other universities and university colleges taken together, respectively; and whether he will print in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table like that supplied by his predecessor on 7th August, 1947.

Sir S. Cripps: I am obtaining the information, and will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Tea Duty

Mr. Byers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the subsidy per pound and the import duty per pound on tea.

Sir S. Cripps: The present subsidy on tea is 10d. per 1b., and the import duty is 6d. per 1b.

Mr. Byers: Would it not be advisable to consider abolishing the import duty and increasing the subsidy to get a saving in administrative costs?

Sir S. Cripps: That would depend, of course, on considerations of long-term as well as short-term policy.

Income Tax

Mr. Byers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate of the amount of money which would be lost to the Treasury if the allowances of officers and other ranks in the Armed Forces were not subject to taxation.

Sir S. Cripps: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Byers: Is it not possible to give some rough approximation, even to the nearest million, or two million?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid not without a great deal of work. It would be valueless unless a great deal of work were put into it.

Brigadier Head: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that under the present system of taxed allowances, officers are in fact getting less than before the war and the Services consider that the present system, as opposed to the way in which it was announced, is a swindle?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that is not a matter which arises on this Question.

Brigadier Head: But it is a fact.

Major Legge-Bourke: In view of the fact that under this Government allowances became taxed, has not the right hon. and learned Gentleman some idea of how much he has gained at the Exchequer?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid it is not possible to arrive at any valuable figure without a great deal of work being done.

Foreign Travel (Dollar Currency)

Mrs. Leah Manning: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is

prepared to allow a small amount of dollar currency to the parents of U.S.A. and Canadian brides wishing to visit their daughters in those countries.

Sir S. Cripps: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) on Tuesday, 7th December, 1948.

Mrs. Manning: As that was not a satisfactory answer, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider the fact that these young women—more than 100,000 of them—are of child-bearing age and are therefore not available for industry and have removed from the Government the necessity of finding housing, clothing and all other benefits for them? Could he not be a little more generous in the matter?

Sir S. Cripps: Fortunately, we do not have to provide dollars for housing and this is a question of providing dollars.

Mrs. Manning: Could all these things be provided without spending any dollars?

Sir S. Cripps: I did not say that we did not spend any dollars. I said that we did not spend dollars on them.

Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that whilst these people can get tickets to their destination in America, they can get nothing at all to pay for food and hotel accommodation while they are crossing America? Cannot some provision be made to enable them to get an inclusive ticket which covers hotel accommodation, food, etc., on the journey?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that it all comes down to the same question of providing dollars. As I explained earlier, we are not in a position to provide dollars except in cases of hardship.

Mr. Chetwynd: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had any requests from the husbands of these women that their mothers-in-law should visit them?

BILL PRESENTED

COMMONWEALTH TELEGRAPHS BILL

"to give effect to certain provisions of an agreement for promoting and co-ordinating the efficiency and development of the external telegraph services of the Commonwealth, and to make provision for certain matters incidental thereto and for extending the system, heretofore embodied in the arrangement made by the Postmaster-General with Cable and Wireless, Limited, in pursuance of subsection (4) of Section one of the Imperial Telegraphs Act, 1938, for the sharing of revenue derived from telegrams transmitted to or from places outside the United Kingdom," presented by Mr. Wilfred Paling; supported by Mr. Creech Jones and Mr. P. Noel-Baker; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

Orders of the Day — SOLICITORS, PUBLIC NOTARIES, ETC., BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 1.—(Abolition of stamp duty and consequential amendments.)

3.32 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, to leave out from beginning, to "or," in line 15.
It might be for the convenience of the Committee to consider together this and the next Amendment on the Order Paper, which also stands in my name. The Committee may remember that on the Second Reading of this Bill I said that it might be necessary to reconsider the proposal contained in Clause 1 as originally drafted that notaries public should no longer be required to take out
practising certificates. We have given further consideration to that matter, and on reflection we have come to the conclusion that the more convenient course would be to retain the effect of the existing provisions of the law, which ensure the registration of all those who practise as notaries public, and which at the same time provide those gentlemen with tangible evidence of their qualifications so to act.
The present position, as I told the House on Second Reading, is that of the 523 gentlemen who are qualified to act as notaries public, 500 are in fact solicitors and have their practising certificates as such. These practising certificates are registered by the Court of Faculties, which knows of these 500 solicitors as being entitled also to practise as notaries public. The remaining 23 who are not qualified to act as solicitors but who have qualified as notaries public by the other methods available, that is to say, by being members of the Scriveners' Company or by having been apprenticed for some considerable time to a person who was a notary public, received their practising certificates from the Inland Revenue Department on payment of the appropriate Stamp Duty, and were thereupon registered by the Court of Faculties in the same way. In future, following upon the abolition of the


Stamp Duty, the Inland Revenue Department will no longer have any particular interest in the matter, and practising certificates will consequently no longer be issued by them.
In these circumstances the new Subsection which the second of my Amendments proposes to embody in Clause 1 will enable the Court of Faculties to issue practising certificates to the very small minority of notaries public who are not themselves practising solicitors. It is no doubt a little anomalous that the Court of Faculties, with its ecclesiastical association, should retain a jurisdiction in this now most temporal matter, but many of the traditions and forms of our law are perhaps anomalies when they are viewed through the magnifying glass of some modern realist, although I am not sure that they are any the worse for that.
We are advised by the Law Society, who have considered this matter, and from such information as we have been able to obtain we believe that the present system is not unsatisfactory in practice. Accordingly, it is not and never has been the object of this Bill to sweep it away merely because it is founded in the history of days long since past. For that reason we propose, by the Subsection contained in the second Amendment in my name, to enable the Court of Faculties to issue practising certificates to the small minority of persons involved, and so to leave the law in regard to this matter substantially unaffected.

Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move in page 2, line 6, at the end, to insert:
(3) A reference in any enactment to a duly certificated notary public shall, as respects things done after the commencement of this Act, be taken as a reference to a notary public who either—

(a) has in force a practising certificate as a solicitor issued under the Solicitors Act, 1932, and duly entered in the court of faculties of the Archbishop of Canterbury in accordance with rules made by the master of faculties; or
(b) has in force a practising certificate as a public notary issued by the said court of faculties in accordance with rules made as aforesaid.

Mr. Charles Williams: I do not quite understand how many people are likely to be affected by this ancient practice. Apparently there is one list

which has to go before the Archbishop of Canterbury. It would be interesting to the Committee and to the country if the Attorney-General could give us a rather fuller history of how this takes place. I was charmed to be able to agree with him that this was one of the cases in which, in spite of his usual lack of caution on these matters, he was able to think that it was an ancient custom which it would be advisable to retain. I fully appreciate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is learned in these matters. I should also like to have from him a fuller explanation of this rather curious matter. It is most interesting suddenly to find in the course of an ordinary afternoon's Committee stage, that the practice mentioned in the new Subsection continues. I should like to know what changes were made in the 1932 Act and how what the new Subsection contains is brought about. Can the Attorney-General tell us whether an Archbishop has this kind of duty placed upon him in any other country in the world? It would be interesting to know whether this was unique. For instance, is there any similar sort of position in Scotland? I see that the Scottish Law Officer is present, and obviously aching to give some information.

Mr. McKie: I support the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). I am not entering into the merits of what he said in the earlier part of his speech, although the Committee should be indebted to him for raising this point, but it is desirable that the Lord Advocate or the Attorney-General should tell us how this will operate in Scotland. The Bill says in its title that it is:
To repeal the enactments requiring certain legal practitioners in Great Britain. …
to do certain things. Therefore it is a question of the possible functions of the Archbishop of Canterbury in Scotland, and that will raise a great deal of public interest.
I do not propose, indeed it would be outwith the scope of this Debate, to enter into the merits so far as Scottish history is concerned. Our great respect and regard is always paid to whoever fills the chair of St. Augustine, but any unlawful introduction of that office to Scotland in any way would, even now, be very much resented. I am sorry to see the Lord Advocate smiling and even


laughing and chuckling to himself at what I say, because he knows my words are true. Many people in Scotland, not merely those connected with the legal profession, but members of the general public—and I hope I am not saying anything to inflame prejudice—would wish to know why at this late day it is necessary to introduce into a Measure submitted to this House requiring changes concerning certain legal practitioners in Scotland any mention of the Archbishop of Canterbury, whoever fills that important post or function.
I may say without disrespect that in Scotland the Archbishop of Canterbury has no place at all, even in the table of precedence, and now we are about to give him, if this Clause, as amended, is agreed, a very important function indeed. There can be no doubt about that, otherwise why is he named? I feel certain that the general public in Scotland will be very interested. There is an old saying that once a Scotsman is started on a theological argument it may go on for a very long time. There will be great interest taken in this matter by persons in Scotland interested in the historical position, and we shall be glad to know just why it is necessary, so far as Scotland is concerned, to introduce the name of the Archbishop of Canterbury at all in this matter.

The Attorney-General: Beyond pointing out that this Amendment has no relation to Scotland at all, I do not think that it would be wise for me to enter into the difficult questions of comparative law raised by the two hon. Gentlemen. So far as the history of the institution of notary public in this country is concerned, I commend the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) to the illuminating speech which I made on the subject on Second Reading.

Mr. C. Williams: I should like to think that the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was illuminating, but unfortunately it was not. It was very far from being illuminating. It was lacking in clarity, illumination and any other quality. I was hoping this time that he would have something interesting to say, but he is apparently unwilling to help in the matter. I was very polite in my speech and I hoped that he was beginning to show some courtesy to the House.

I regret that he cannot explain this matter at the present time. It is most unsatisfactory when a high Law Officer brings an Amendment of this sort and will not give an explanation. After all, we have some right to know the history of these matters. I hope it is satisfactory. I should have been more satisfied if I had heard some hon. and learned Gentleman from this side of the Committee who could have told us about it. But now we have no information and apparently the learned Attorney-General will not give us any.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended. ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 2.—(Short title, commencement and extent.)

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.45 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Subsection (2) of the Clause states:
Provided that it shall not affect the law relating to Scottish solicitors unless or until they are required to take out practising certificates by some Act other than the Stamp Act. 1891.
I wish to know whether the Lord Advocate or the Attorney-General consider that the last part of that sentence is clear. Does it mean that any Act that may come on the Statute Book at any time is applicable to this, or any Act already on it? If so it seems to me that it could be put much more clearly as to which of existing Acts are likely to affect this, and in the case of one not yet on the Statute Book there should be no reference to it at all.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): The explanation is simply that there is at present before the House another Bill which will alter the whole nature of the taking out of practising certificates in Scotland. The hon. and gallant Member no doubt is aware of the Bill to which I refer. It is the second part of the Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Bill. Until that Bill becomes an Act and the provisions are put into operation, the existing system in Scotland of taking out practising certificates will remain. Thereafter, the new procedure will be brought into operation, and this is merely a transitional Clause to provide


for the continuance of the existing system until the new system comes into operation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Consequential Amendments.)

Amendments made: In page 3, line 26, column 2, leave out "or."

In page 3, line 27, column 2, leave out "a."—[The Attorney-General.]

Consequential Amendments made.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Repeals.)

Amendment made: In page 6, line 24, column 3, leave out "onwards," and insert "to 'duty'."—[The Attorney-General.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with Amendments; as amended considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — JURIES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.50 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The other day, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill of which we have just disposed, I ventured to say that I wished sometimes that somebody would entrust to the Law Officers a more controversial and exciting Measure on which we might really let ourselves go. I fear that this is not such a Measure. This Bill is designed to effect modest, and I should imagine quite non-controversial, changes which will bring about an amelioration of our law in regard to juries. It provides, in the first place, that juries should receive some limited compensation for the loss of earnings and expenses in which their service may involve them; and, in the second place, that that singular anomaly, the special jury, should be abolished.
I am sorry that two such simple and indeed overdue reforms should require

legislation so tediously technical as many of the 31 Clauses of this Bill of necessity have to be. In an ideal world a Bill of two Clauses would be sufficient, but, in some respects, this is still not yet an ideal world. Moreover, the jury system is something which has had its roots in the long distant past, when it existed, indeed, not as the palladium of our liberties which it is now said to be, but as something of probably continental origin which the would-be absolutist monarchs of those days sought to use and develop in their struggle to secure a monopoly in the administration of justice.
In consequence of that history and in the course of time, the ramifications of the jury system became so widespread that any legislation which one introduces now and which affects its operation at all necessarily has to bear a somewhat complicated and technical appearance. I said "any legislation which affects its operation," but perhaps that was rather an ill-chosen phrase, because I should not like it to be thought for a moment that any one of the 31 Clauses of this Bill in any way affects the fundamental right to trial by jury. That right, both in civil and in criminal cases, will remain entirely unimpaired. On the contrary, we hope that the provisions of this Bill will strengthen the jury system, which, despite its probably alien origin, is now typically English in its very successful combination of the lay and the expert element.
Just now, in some of those countries which, by a bitter irony, describe themselves as popular democracies, there is a great move towards the establishment of what are called people's courts. Very often, these seem to be composed of a special selection of the people, and they take the law, as well as the facts, into their own hands and adapt both of them to fit the prejudices and passions of the moment. I venture to think that that method is just as inimical to justice and the rule of law as would be the opposite extreme of concentrating all judicial power in the hands of a single professional judge sitting alone, and not having, even in difficult questions of fact, the assistance of a jury.
I do not say for a moment that our English system—and it has been followed, I think, in Scotland—which is essentially a compromise, is one in which one never gets a miscarriage of justice, but on the


whole I think that everyone who has studied the working of our own system and has some knowledge of the working of the different systems in vogue on the Continent, would agree that judge and jury sitting together do form a most efficient instrument for the administration of law and justice in those cases where questions of fact are involved. I venture to stress that, both because I want, at the outset, to make it clear that this Bill does not touch at all the right or method of trial by jury, and, secondly, to emphasise that service on a jury ought not to be regarded as, and ought not to be allowed to become, a burden on the ordinary citizen. At present, unfortunately, it is too often a burden, and it is with the remedying of that situation that the first part of this Bill is concerned.
I expect all of us who practise in the law have known of cases where persons who depend upon their earnings for their livelihood have been required to sit on juries, perhaps after waiting many days, sometimes kept for a day or two, and sometimes indeed for many weeks, without obtaining any compensation whatever. It is to meet that state of affairs that the first part of this Bill has been introduced. The citizen who serves on a jury is, of course, exercising a very important privilege by taking his share in the administration of the country's justice, and it may rightly be said also that he is, at the same time, helping to support and maintain something which is one of the great safeguards of his own freedom and liberty. The common jury is the protection of the common man. That being so, we might have a great deal of interesting philosophical discussion whether or not a person should be paid for exercising that privilege and discharging that right and duty. For my part, I should certainly not disagree that there are some services which the State may require from its citizens, and which its citizens ought to be prepared to give without any compensation or reward.
However attractive that may be as a philosophical principle, it would be utterly unrealistic to apply it to jury service, the burden of which falls unevenly and unequally on the rich and poor. I daresay that to a rich man a period of a few days spent in the jury box might sometimes form an amusing, and sometimes a not altogether uninstructive, interlude; on the other hand, for the

working man, living from week to week without any great margin, it might deplete the family purse in a way which would be ill-calculated to increase the enthusiasm of that family for the British legal system. The fact is, of course, that it is not in the interest of the State so to arrange and organise the duties which it requires from its citizens that they form a far heavier burden on one section of the community than they do upon another. It is for that reason that, implementing the undertaking which I gave, I think, last year or the year before, we have introduced this Bill providing for the payment of juries.
The principle that jurors should be paid is not an entirely new one. It is true that no payment is provided in criminal cases, but in civil cases, by custom, jurors have been entitled to be paid, not by the State but by the parties to the litigation before them, sums of money which although quite derisory now, were probably not wholly insignificant at the time when the right to them was first established. Traditionally, it appears to be the position that jurors were entitled to be paid what was called the juror's groat for each case in which they assisted, and a groat equalled the sum of 4d. The amount actually varied in different courts. In some, the parsimony was so great that they got only half a groat, and in other courts the extravagance and profligacy went so far that they got three groats at the end of each case. These amounts may have been worth having in mediaeval times, but I should not like to describe to the House the language which a juror in these days, who, at the end of a protracted and tedious case was handed half a groat, might think it appropriate to use. Special juries, as one might expect, managed to look after themselves rather better, and it has been for a long time the custom that, although their need was not so great as that of the common juror, they should be rewarded at the rate of one guinea a day.
The present Bill, while doing away with the distinction between the common jury and the special jury, will provide that jurors who give their time and care to the duties which the State requires them to perform should receive appropriate allowances on scales generally applicable to all courts throughout the country in respect of any


loss of earnings which they may suffer and any expenses to which they may be put, within certain defined limits which are set out in the Bill.
That aspect of the matter is dealt with in Clause 1 of the Bill so far as it affects England and Wales, and in Clause 22 so far as it concerns Scotland. These Clauses provide that the allowances to be paid shall cover travelling expenses and subsistence and shall also provide compensation for loss of earnings. The actual amounts which may be payable under these various heads are to be settled by regulations to be made by the Secretary of State in the form of statutory instruments and, therefore, subject to Parliamentary control; subject to this, that the amount to be paid in respect of loss of earnings is not to exceed 20s. in respect of a full day and 10s. in respect of a half day. That limitation, as hon. Members will perhaps recall, is in line with that which was provided under the Local Government Act last year in connection with the payment of allowances to members of local authorities. The travelling allowance will be the actual cost of travelling from home to court at the third class fare, and the subsistence allowance will not exceed 5s. a day.
Those amounts are, of course, not intended to be extravagant. They will not, I venture to think, make jury service financially attractive. They will not compensate for the inconvenience nor, in all cases, compensate for the actual loss a juror may sustain, but they will at least avoid the really grave hardship which every barrister, solicitor and many other hon. Members of the House will appreciate often does arise from our existing arrangements in these respects. They will provide that although some loss may be sustained and although there may be considerable inconvenience, no really grave hardship such as has been suffered before will in future be sustained by those who are called upon to discharge this important duty. I am sure that principle will be acceptable to the House and that it will not be necessary for me to say much more about the remaining 15 Clauses of the Bill which merely implement that general principle and provide for the machinery under which it is to be carried out.

Mr. Charles Williams: In the matter of earnings, will this principle apply to, say, the shopkeeper or farmer or artisan who is not receiving direct daily earnings? Will he be eligible as well, if he chooses to apply?

The Attorney-General: Yes, that provision will be made and will be covered by the regulations. They will cover the case which the hon. Gentleman has in mind of the self-employed person.
I said that I should not need to say much about the next 15 Clauses of the Bill which are mainly machinery, but I should perhaps touch on one or two of the more important matters which we are asking the House to do in this Measure. Perhaps I should first deal with the question of who will pay. The answer to that, no doubt, is, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you and I and the great masses of potential jurymen and jury-women will pay; but the question is whether we should pay by rates or by taxes. That question is a little complicated. In England and Wales the administration of criminal justice falls upon the local funds. The administration of justice in the civil courts, on the other hand, with one or two exceptions which I need not enumerate here—one of them is the Liverpool Court of Passage—is a charge upon the national funds. The reason for that difference in treatment is largely historical, and I do not think the House would wish me to go into the history of the matter now.
There may be strong reasons and arguments for throwing the general cost of the administration of the criminal law on to the national Exchequer, but that is a matter which would involve complicated questions of law and policy, and this is not the occasion on which to do it. What we have sought to do in this modest little Measure is to follow the existing principles in regard to the distribution of these charges between the local authorities and the national Exchequer, and, in the result, the cost of payments to jurors in civil courts will be borne on national funds while the cost of payments to jurors in the criminal courts will fall as a charge upon the local rates. It is very difficult to estimate what the total expenditure involved in these proposals will eventually be.
The figure of £2 per juror which is mentioned in the Financial Memorandum to the Bill is of necessity largely conjectural, and from the facts of the situation it is impossible to give any firm estimate, but, making the best estimate we can, we anticipate that the charge on local funds will amount to about £132,000 a year and the charge on the national Exchequer will be about £22,000 a year. There is perhaps this further thing to be said, that in the case of the charge on the national funds there may be some contribution from the actual parties to the litigation. As I explained just now, under the present system such payments as are made to juries in civil cases fall upon the litigants themselves, and provision will be made under the regulations that some payment which will not cover the whole cost should be made by the litigants by way of court fees to the charges for the payment of the jurors.
Most of the first 16 Clauses of the Bill deal with the implementation of these principles and the methods by which payments shall be paid and allocated. They are, I think, all Committee matters with which I need not further bother the House at this stage, except perhaps to say a word about Clause 14. Clause 14 excludes from the operation of the Bill juries which have been summoned for the particular purposes set out in the body of that Clause. There is, for instance, the jury summons at which is known as a trial of the pyx. That has, I should perhaps say for the information of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), nothing to do with the delightful fairies called pixies which, I believe, inhabit his constituency, but it is an annual testing of the coins from the Mint, and it is attended by a jury of I think not fewer than six competent persons who are members of the Mystery Goldsmiths of the City of London—far from a fairy-like body but one the members of which are not thought to require any remuneration under the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. C. Williams: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was kind enough to refer to me. May I have the great privilege of saying how pleased I am to be able to congratulate him on having made an accurate statement which I happened to know before.

The Attorney-General: Clause 14 refers to other ancient courts mentioned

in paragraph (c) and (d). There are, for instance, the Barmote Courts which have a legal jurisdiction relating in the main to mining matters and also to some civil pleas in The High Peak of Derbyshire. The Great Barmote Court meets once a year and is attended by a grand jury who, although not paid, by all accounts seem to have a grand time. I am not sure what, if any, litigious business is transacted on these occasions, but they are of some festivity and one of the main features of them is that the grand jurors are entertained to lunch by the Bar Master.
We think that these ancient and traditional ceremonies are to be encouraged, and we hope that, despite the absence of any subsistence allowance, these functions will go on and a good time will continue to be had by all. So I leave that part of the Bill. I do not think that I had better take up time in describing the other somewhat archaic courts referred to in that paragraph. None of them exercise any important function in regard to litigation, but some of them still retain some traditional functions which it would be a pity to do away with, but for which it is unnecessary to provide any payment for those who take part. We therefore exempt them from the provisions of the Bill, hoping that they will continue their traditional ceremonies.
Then I come to the second object of this Bill, the abolition of the special jury in all criminal and civil cases except those which are tried by a special jury of the City of London in commercial causes. The special jury has now become a complete anachronism, and its continued existence is inimical to that appearance of equal and impartial justice which ought to be fundamental to our system. If any hon. Member still has a sneaking regard for the distinction between the common and the special jury—and I remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) did feel some such regard when the matter was raised in the House some little time ago—I would ask him to explain on what principle he would justify the fact that, for instance, a newspaper proprietor who is sued or himself sues for libel can demand a special jury, but who, if he is prosecuted in the criminal courts for perhaps exactly the same libel, has no right to a special jury. Or who can justify the


fact that a man on trial for his life on a charge of murder has no right to demand the services of a special jury, while if he is merely being sued for some small amount in damages he can secure for his purse such protection as a special jury may be able to give him?
It is, in the view of His Majesty's present advisers, a distinction which it is now wholly unjustifiable to maintain. I say "now." It may be that the origin of the special jury is an understandable one, but what I submit now is that the retention of the distinction has become wholly unjustifiable. In very early days, in the 15th century, when most of the populalation was largely illiterate, a property qualification no doubt provided some sort of assurance that jurors would possess some degree of education. It was at that time that the right to a special jury was first established, and the distinction between the common and the special jury was maintained on its present basis by the Juries Act of 1870.
I will not take up time by going through all the distinctions between the qualifications of the common juror and the special juror. But to take one matter, there is the property qualification: a person is liable to serve as a common juror if he is a householder rated in London at £30 a year, or in the country at £20; to reach the social and judicial distinction of a special juror he must have a house rated in London, or in the larger towns, at £100 a year, or in the country at £50. Even if a man is not a ratepayer at all he may be entitled to be a special juror if he is entitled to be called an "esquire" or a "banker." Who nowadays is so entitled I have not the remotest idea. Who is a banker? Is it the man who cashes, or refuses to cash, one's cheque at the counter, the manager of the local branch, a member of the board of directors, or only the chairman of the company? I have not the faintest idea.
Who is an esquire? The Encyclopædia Britannica sets out a list of ten classes of persons who, it says, are entitled so to describe themselves, but excellent and authoritative as that publication no doubt is, I believe the matter is still one of considerable dispute. Then merchants are entitled to qualify as special jurors, but merchants, as Baron

Bramwell pointed out, are to be distinguished from manufacturers. Thus the manufacturer of motor cars, for example, is not entitled to be a special juror merely by virtue of being a manufacturer, though he may have other qualifications, but the man who sells his motor cars may come in under the qualification of merchant. In what was no doubt a momentous decision in the year 1611, in the case of Hammond v. Jethro, it was pointed out that an ordinary shopkeeper may be a merchant and so qualify. But even worse was to come, because in 1819 the court held that the fact that a person was a retail shopkeeper did not negative the possibility that he might also be an esquire, and in that capacity be entitled to sit as a special juror.
We propose to do away—I was going to say with all this nonsense—with all these curious anachronisms. The general standard of education in the country is now so much higher that the distinction in the property qualification is one which no longer affords any test of a person's capacity to sit on a jury. There may be some who would go further and say that mere education is not in itself the best criterion by which capacity to serve on a jury is to be judged. All of us have met highly educated people who are utterly lacking in that shrewd common sense which one often finds in ordinary working people who have had no education at all; although they have not had the advantage of the playing fields of Eton, they have been brought up in the hard school of experience. At this time an educational test for a juryman would be an unwise one to impose, and would certainly not be one adequately provided for by the property distinction between common and special jurors.
Juries ought—and this is our view about the matter—on the whole to represent as far as may be a chance cross-section of the community—the 12 men on the Clapham omnibus. Nowadays even an esquire sometimes travels on an omnibus, and for the rest, the butcher, baker and candlestick maker are just as well able to administer justice shrewdly and fairly, and with a real regard to our freedoms and liberties, as their more propertied fellows may be. So we propose with one exception to abolish this property distinction.
The one exception which we propose to make is that which relates to the special jury for the City of London. We think it may be useful to retain that special jury in the trial of cases in the commercial court of the King's Bench Division. As hon. Members may know, it is the practice of the King's Bench Division to maintain a special cause list for commercial cases arising out of the transactions of merchants and traders, and these cases are heard by a judge who has special commercial experience; and when a jury is required—which in practice is very infrequently now—that jury may be summoned from persons in the City of London who have experience and knowledge of commercial matters. These are technical matters and we have felt, and the House will probably agree, that it may be convenient that they should be dealt with by jurors who have special technical experience. For the rest of the cases, civil or criminal, between all parties, rich or poor, they will be tried by exactly the same kind of jury, where juries are appropriate, juries drawn from the same class, remunerated in the same way, who represent a kind of cross-section of the community.
There may be something to be said for abolishing the property qualification altogether, and for saying that anyone who is qualified to vote at an election for instance is equally fitted to serve on a jury, and in principle I must admit that I should not like to have to disagree with that proposition. I think our experience at the last General Election, and at the by-elections that have occurred since, and no doubt at the General Election which will occur in 1949—[Interruption]—I should have said 1950—undoubtedly gives great confidence in the electors of this country. It may well be that there is much to be said in favour of allowing all those whose names are on the voters' register to serve, when called upon, as members of juries.
I see that that proposition is the subject of an Amendment which has been put down, and which is certainly not unattractive, but the House will appreciate that the question of the removal of all property qualifications would inevitably involve some review of the various disqualifications and exemptions which exist in the present law. That is a matter of great difficulty and complica-

tion, and it would hardly have been possible for us to deal with it, however attractive it may be, within the scope of the Bill which is intended to come into operation as soon as next October.
The object of this Bill is not to alter tile general law in regard to the qualification or disqualification for jury service. That is a much more far-reaching matter. The object of this Measure is merely to abolish the distinction between different classes of jury. I would not exclude the possibility that hereafter we may be able to do something on the lines of the Amendment, and I shall listen to the arguments in this Debate and in Committee about that matter. But the purpose of the present Bill is of necessity a much more limited one.
I have said all I desire to say about this Bill at this stage, save to add that the Bill applies, with necessary changes mutatis mutandis to Scotland, and that Clause 31 enables the Parliament of Northern Ireland to introduce, if so advised, similar legislation for that country. I hope that the two purposes for which the Bill has been introduced will command the general support of the House and that they will facilitate the working in modern circumstances and present day conditions of one of the most valued and characteristic of our British institutions.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Attorney-General deplored the fact that a Law Officer seldom had an opportunity of introducing a really controversial Measure on which he could let himself go. The memory of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a little short. He seems to have forgotten the part he played on the Trade Disputes Act. At any rate, he has the consolation that on this occasion, if he could not let himself go with the vigour and violence that he desires, he has let himself go for a very considerable time, almost an hour, introducing this non-controversial Measure.
In the course of that hour he said singularly little about the provisions of the Bill as they affect Scotland. I appreciate the reasons why he did not do so. I do not feel that I am competent in the least degree to comment on the Scottish aspect of the Bill. Should not that part of the Bill be considered by the


Scottish Standing Committee? I hope that we shall have an assurance that steps will be taken for that part of the Bill to go to the Scottish Standing Committee. It would be very awkward if we become involved today in the Scottish law relating to juries.
We welcome the first part of the Bill. I have always regarded as an anomaly the fact that juries in criminal cases who are performing a public duty—this appears to be the principle behind it—merely because they are performing a public duty, receive nothing to compensate them for the expense incurred in attending and performing that duty, and nothing to compensate them for their loss of earnings. Indeed, attendance in many parts of the country involves journeys of considerable difficulty. In many counties it is not at all easy to get from outlying parts to the county towns, and a journey may take a considerable time.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the travelling allowance would be the equivalent of third-class fare, but there must be many instances where it is not possible for the juror to go by rail, or even by bus, from an outlying part of the county to the county town. Even in my own county, if one wants to travel from Brackley to Northampton which is only 22 miles distant, Northampton being the assize town, there is no public service on most days of the week. One would have to go right round by Bletchley. The statement by the right hon. and learned Gentleman about third-class fare does not appear in the Bill. I hope that we shall be told that he does not exclude payment of proper expense incurred in getting to the court where other means are not available, even if it means hiring a car for the purpose. Not only is it in many cases difficult to get to the county town but the journey has to be made several days running. Loss of earnings and the expense of travel may be considerably more than the jurors can easily afford.
I was sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave way to his political prejudices by seeking, in that part of his speech, to draw some distinction between rich jurors and working jurors. The duty falls upon both of them, and it is largely by reason of the actions of the Government of which the right hon.

and learned Gentleman is a member, that the rich juror is a rare bird in these days.
It was for those reasons that in Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill, I moved a new Clause seeking to secure payment to jurors in criminal cases at assizes and at quarter sessions of remuneration on the same basis as ordinary witnesses would be paid. That new Clause met with a favourable response from all sides of the Committee, and a not wholly unfavourable response from the Home Secretary. That right hon. Gentleman objected to it on the grounds that it was wrong to throw the cost on to the local rates and that it was wrong to deal with the matter piecemeal, because no provision could be made in a Criminal Justice Bill for jurors in civil cases. There was much more force in his second ground than in his first. I am glad to find that the Government agree with me, because now the burden of juries in criminal cases will be borne by the rates.
The Bill will apply to juries in all courts except those specified in Clause 14. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the allowances were largely in line with those given to members of local authorities. It is perhaps desirable also to have a look at the allowances given to ordinary witnesses and to see whether they are in line too. I made some researches into that subject last night, when it did occur to me—I may be wrong—that there are discrepancies in treatment between ordinary witnesses and jurors. So far as I can ascertain, and I made what researches I could, the maximum allowance to an ordinary witness, for instance, for a day's attendance is 14s. whereas for a juror it is now to be 20s. In that connection the right hon. Gentleman did not say anything about what would happen if a juror had to spend a night in the assize town. I hope that scales and conditions will be prescribed to try to create some measure of uniformity.
I agree that in the past, in the case of civil juries, jurors received a remuneration which was totally inadequate. The Bill does a great deal to remove that evil, but I am puzzled by one thing in the Explanatory Memorandum, about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not say much, and that is the burden which will fall on the Exchequer


in respect of juries in civil cases. Primarily, the cost will fall on the Exchequer, but it will to some extent be borne by the litigants. The Explanatory Memorandum says that the cost is estimated to be £22,000 a year. Then it goes on to say:
The latter sum would be reduced to a limited extent by the receipts from the fees which may be prescribed and charged to litigants who apply for a jury.
I am little puzzled by the word "limited." I could understand if it were provided that litigants in civil cases who wanted a jury would be required to pay the full cost of the jury. That would form part of the cost to be taxed like the cost of witnesses. Perhaps there is something to be said for a party applying for a jury having to pay the costs of the jury in any event. I could also understand, on the argument that it is desirable to make litigation less expensive, the Exchequer paying the whole cost. I must admit that I am at a loss to understand upon what principle it has been decided that the Exchequer should pay some part and that contributions to a limited extent should be made by the litigants. I should be glad if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could indicate the proportion that litigants are expected to pay and what proportion is to fall upon the Exchequer.
I have really said all that I need to say about the first part of the Bill, which we welcome. I am sorry that the Government have made the decision to abolish special juries. Listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman most carefully, I thought that his reasons for taking that step were inadequate and unworthy. Is it suggested that special juries have not in the past stood by their oaths? Is it suggested that they function unfairly? If it is not so suggested, it is difficult for me to discern an adequate reason for their abolition. I do not think that a mere discrepancy between the property qualification of a special juror and of a common juror suffices to justify the inclusion of this Clause in the Bill.
It may be that the qualifications, both for common juror and special juror, need looking at again and revising, but the difference between being the occupier of premises rated at £50 in the country, which constitutes a special juror, and £20 in the country for a householder, which

constitutes a common juror, is not a very significant distinction.

The Attorney-General: That is why we are abolishing it.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The distinction between qualifications is not very significant. The difference does not in any way justify the abolition of special juries. The reason I feel sure, goes far beyond that. Indeed, it is not without significance that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has retained, in my opinion quite rightly, the City of London special juries. He recognises that for commercial actions the difference between the common jury and the special jury for the trial of those actions is desirable and necessary in the interests of justice. It would appear to follow from his retention only of the special jury in commercial actions in the City of London that he foresees, and thinks it is desirable, that commercial actions should not be tried at Liverpool, Manchester, on the Northern Circuit, or at Birmingham, and that litigants up there who wish their case to be tried before a special jury should bring it down for trial in London.

The Attorney-General: That is, of course, the position today. That will remain the position under this Bill. Those who have commercial causes on assize, and who wish to have the advantage of a City of London jury, have to have their cases transferred for trial in the commercial court. The present position on assize, as I understand it, is that it may be possible—this would be extremely unusual in commercial cases—to have a special jury to try that case, but not a City of London special jury. The point of having that City of London special jury is to get the expert knowledge of commercial matters, which is lacking in any special jury one may get on assize.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: This seems to me to cast a grave reflection on Liverpool and Manchester, which I was not seeking to cast. I was not suggesting that a City of London special jury should be taken up to Liverpool to adjudicate on a case heard in Liverpool. I should have thought it possible for the parties—I am sure it was the position, and is the position now, until this Bill becomes an Act—in Liverpool in a commercial action to ask for a special jury and to get one.

The Attorney-General: I think that is very unlikely as a matter of fact. Cases on which a special jury may sit, in the ordinary case in the High Court or on circuit, are very limited, and commercial cases are not amongst them. A City of London special jury is quite a special institution consisting of persons who have not merely property qualifications, but are expert in commercial transactions. There is no machinery under the existing law for empannlling a jury of that kind elsewhere than in the King's Bench Division and the commercial court.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I was aware of that, but I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that—until the Bill becomes an Act—it is possible to obtain special juries—not City of London special juries, but special juries—at Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester and the other big assize towns. That right will go. As one who does not practise on the Northern Circuit, of course I must not be thought to oppose the prospect of cases of that character being brought down to London; but I think it a retrograde step, if both parties to the litigation want a special jury, that they should not be able to have one. This Bill will prevent them from having one.
I must say that it does look as if the decision to abolish special juries is not dissociated from the results of certain cases which have taken place since the last General Election. I well remember the Question put by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) to the right hon. and learned Gentleman on this matter shortly after the conclusion of a special jury case, and, indeed, the answers given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman considerably later, saying that this decision had been arrived at. I think it is a retrograde step. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has really not justified it. I agree that there may be a case for examining the qualifications, but I say that the abolition of special juries, except for the City of London special jury, will not improve the administration of justice.
However, in my opinion the good contained in this Bill, in providing for the remuneration of jurors to a limited extent and for the payment of their travelling

expenses, outweighs the badness contained in this Clause. I hope that on reconsideration, the Government may perhaps be induced to change their attitude on that matter, and we on this side, in those circumstances, shall not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Bing: I am sure that this Measure, like many others which we have heard moved from our Front Bench, will be welcomed by everybody on this side of the House as a most excellent Measure; but we may make the criticism, that we have sometimes made of other Measures, that in one or two respects, perhaps, it does not go quite far enough. I was very glad indeed to hear the Attorney-General say that he would listen carefully to any arguments which were put up for the proposition that jury service should be like the vote—a right and duty imposed on anyone quite irrespective of what property he might or might not own. The arguments are very strong for that point of view. I do not doubt whatsoever that my right hon. and learned Friend will be convinced if only he does one thing—if only he goes to his own constituency and studies there his register.
Let me give one or two figures from my constituency. Let me take a Labour ward, the ward of Rainham. I take a Labour ward because that happens to be a poor one. Most of the people who live in it are working-class people. There are on the register 5,812 people. Of those 45 are jurors, of whom 44 are men and one is a woman. In these circumstances it is a little hard, since the Attorney-General said that, after all, what we want is a chance cross-section of the people, to see how one woman out of 5,812 electors is a chance cross-section. It is, but not quite in the sense in which, I think, the Attorney-General made the point. I am very glad to see the Home Secretary here, because I read with great interest and great approval the argument about numbers which, I think I am right in saying, he made when dealing with the Licensing Bill. He said, "Why, this Bill will affect in the end only one out of 110 people—a purely negligible number." But if one looks at the figures at Rainham, this Bill affects one out of 146. How can one be purely negligible in consideration of the


Licensing Bill and yet, for the purposes of this Bill, a fair cross-section of the people? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), I thought rather unfairly, made some attack on the Attorney-General, because he said the present selection of juries was political. Well, it is in this sense.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Really the hon. Gentleman must not misquote me. I did not say anything of the sort.

Mr. Bing: I am very sorry. Again, as before, I with other hon. Members in the House failed to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman. However, while I do not say one should disqualify a juror because he is a Conservative, I do not see any particular reason why juries should be composed exclusively of Conservatives. Let me take one other ward from my area, Upminster, which has voted so solidly Conservative that they feel now they can solve problems in the Conservative Party by putting up rival anti-Labour candidates to fight one another. There they have some 10,000 electors, which is twice the number in the working-class ward, but their number of jurors is 2,129, of whom 1,809 are men and 320 are women.
There are just two other points I would make. The first is that the property qualification as it exists at the moment has really got much worse owing to changes during the war. Removals, and so on, have taken place, and people who would normally be on the jury list are now excluded, and are likely to continue to be excluded because of the low rateable value of the houses built by the local authorities, and so on. The second is that this qualification dates from 1825, from a Parliament whose other activities, so far as I can see from looking through the reports, were revising the Combination Acts against trade unions and limiting the franchise in Ireland. Those two matters have now been put right, and it seems to me that the time has come to see what can be done with the last surviving legislation of the Parliament of 1825.
Finally, lists as they exist at the moment very largely disqualify women from jury service. Obviously, one of the reforms which is desirable is to see that there is

some rough equality between the sexes in the liability for being called upon a jury. There is no doubt at all that present practice does depart from what was, after all, the principle of Magna Charta, that everybody was entitled to be tried by his peers, and by his "peers" was meant by his equals. We all, on both sides of the House, I think, hear from time to time of distressing cases amongst our constituents. One hears, for instance, from a constituent, who says, "My son was wrongly convicted and the jury were unfair." When, out of 5,000 people in an area, only 45 are chosen by a haphazard method as being capable of sitting on a jury to try someone's son, how can one argue that he who is being tried is being tried by his peers?
I do ask the Attorney-General to reconsider this question of machinery. There are Members on both sides of the House who have some ingenuity, and I feel that if we could discuss the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend before the Committee stage, we could evolve a scheme to establish a really democratic jury system. We do not want to allow this legislative occasion to pass without obtaining, if not immediately, in the near future—say in a year or two—an Act on the Statute Book which will ensure that there will be a democratic jury system.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I must apologise to the Attorney-General for having arrived late, but as the principal point on which I wish to criticise him is on the proposed abolition of special juries. and as I did have the advantage of hearing everything he had to say about that, I hope that my late arrival will not be thought to disqualify me entirely. I ask myself a question to which I try to give an absolutely objective answer. I speak as one to whom the law is bread and butter. I think the Attorney-General could say as much, except that he has, perhaps, some jam on it as well—and so, perhaps, has the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt). To me, the law is my bread and butter. I ask myself this simple question, trying to set aside any kind of prejudice at all: Do I believe that people will get as good justice under the proposed system as they get under the present system? Will causes be tried as well when we have


abolished special juries as they are tried now? Will the results be as satisfactory from the point of view of justice to the parties? It is to that question and to no other that, I suggest, the House should address itself.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) addressed himself to a very different set of questions. He addressed himself to a number of theoretical considerations which, I think, have absolutely no relevance to this issue. The right to vote is, as he correctly said, a right; and it is a right which is correctly sought after by, at any rate, the great majority of our people. Nobody, as far as I know, seeks after jury service in the same way. It is not a right in that sense, and if there be anybody who lusts to appear on juries, I can only say that he is probably most unsuitable to be a juror. The analogy between the right to vote and the so-called right to appear on a jury breaks down in toto. Jury service is a burden imposed on people for the purpose of giving right to other people, namely, the litigants—a civil jury in a civil case, and a criminal jury who do right as between the Crown and the accused person.
To my mind, at any rate, the only sanction is the pragmatic sanction: is more justice or better justice to be done under the new system than under the old? Of course, opinion on that point may differ, but I am giving my opinion that I do not believe justice will be done as well when the special jury is abolished as when it was in full operation. Of course, it is not in full operation now.
Having tried to assert my own objectivity I find it distasteful, and perhaps embarrassing, in view of the fact that I appear as a member of a minority party, to assert the want of objectivity in the Attorney-General; but I none the less do make that assertion. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) reminded the House that the verdict in the Laski case was given on one day and that within a fortnight the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) was suggesting that the special jury system should be abolished; the Attorney-General obligingly replied that the matter was then under consideration and review, and shortly afterwards he said that it had been decided to abolish it.

The Attorney-General: I hope the hon. Member will accept from me that that had no bearing whatever upon my own view. My own view, which I formed in the days when I had to practise before common juries and special juries, was that there was no advantage to justice in maintaining the distinction. I formed that view well before the war.

Mr. Hogg: I am, of course, making an attack upon the Government. I accept the Attorney-General's personal word, as I should accept anything which he told me coming from himself, but I cannot wholly free my mind from the belief, both that the question of the hon. Member for Maldon was influenced by recent events and that the decision of the Government as a whole was not entirely uninfluenced by those events. I am bound to say that, although I accept the Attorney-General's personal assurance that he is as unaware of personal bias in the matter as I on my side am unaware of personal bias, I could not but listen to the arguments which he adduced for the abolition of the special jury and reflect that however much he might believe that he was being unbiased, he was, in fact, adducing arguments which showed that his mind was influenced by bias of a kind which rendered his judgment less valuable on this than it is on other legal topics.
To my mind, the first question one has to ask oneself in this matter is whether it is desirable, and if so to what extent, to restore the jury at all in civil cases. Obviously, if a jury is an unsatisfactory way, as many people think, of trying civil issues, then one ought not merely to abolish the special jury, but one ought at any rate to limit severely the burden which is placed upon ordinary people by making them try common jury cases. It is as well to reflect for a moment how far we have gone in a single generation from the traditional English system of trying issues of fact. When my father was first called to the Bar an ordinary county court case was, as often as not, tried with a jury; nearly all contested divorce cases were. Many a story my father has told me of his triumphs or failures in front of county court juries. The ordinary divorce cases, in which there were issues of fact, were frequently, if not normally, tried with a jury; the ordinary motor accident case was seldom


tried with a judge alone; an ordinary contract case was tried with a jury; and, as a learned judge said in my hearing in court yesterday, the jury was in fact the only normal method known to English law of trying issues of fact.
That situation was fundamentally altered during the course of the 1914–18 war, and the result of the practical abolition of the civil jury in that war was that in the inter-war period juries became more and more limited to cases where parties had a right to demand them—as in libel, slander and some other cases; and they are now limited even within that sphere to a relatively small number of cases. Now, is it desirable to go back upon that development? My own view is that on the whole it is. There is much to be said against juries. They are frequently perverse. A jury case nearly always takes longer to try, and they are for that reason more expensive to the parties. On certain aspects of the matter they are probably less experienced, and less quick to see the truth, than a judge.
None the less, I believe that the profession as a whole would welcome a return to an extended use of the civil jury. Their individual wisdom may be small, but the collective wisdom of 12 men is sometimes rather greater than that of one, however experienced. They are anonymous — a great advantage, because although a judge must in the course of a long career inevitably acquire a good deal of unpopularity, adding at least one to his list of enemies as a result of every decided case, once a jury has concluded its deliberations it disperses and as a body is heard of no more. It commands a good deal of public confidence. It ensures independence to the Bar and prevents the Bar from being servile to the Bench. It can be counted upon to give a broad approach to legal problems and not to fog itself with purely technical considerations. For all these reasons, I am certainly of the opinion, and I should expect that the profession as a whole would be of the opinion, that the civil jury is an advantage which should be retained.
If we come to that conclusion, we are bound to ask ourselves how far the civil jury are competent to deal with the ordinary issues of fact as presented to them time after time in the courts. Can they follow a long and intricate bundle

of commercial correspondence? Can they listen to expert evidence on matters where experts can speak with authority? Can they carry in their minds evidence passing for 13 or 14 days, sometimes when, as we all know, either their ability or their willingness to take connecting notes is severely limited? I can only express the view, as my own, contrary to that of the Attorney-General—and divorced from any theoretical or political consideration—that on the whole, for these cases the special jury gives a better consideration to the case than a common jury, and that a common jury is not a satisfactory tribunal for many cases which would otherwise go to juries. I am bound to say, speaking again as one who earns his bread and butter by the law, that if and when the special jury is abolished, I shall have to advise clients in cases where I would otherwise have asked for a special jury to ask for a judge alone, on the ground that I could not be sure that their case would have proper consideration by a common jury.
The Attorney-General counters that argument with the specious but, as I shall hope to show, wholly unfounded analogy of the criminal jury. He says—and says rightly—that for practical purposes, leaving out of account the theoretical conception, in criminal cases there is no special jury; the criminal case, he alleges with a good deal of force, is sometimes—although I think he might have added seldom—as difficult as the commercial case of the kind of which I have been talking. Why then, he asks, draw a distinction between the civil and the criminal case?
My answer to that is again a pragmatical one, but I find it impossible to be convincing. In a criminal case the dice are deliberately loaded in favour of the accused. That is the system we adopt in this country. We adopt that system in order to prevent the conviction of innocent men, and although the blunders and follies of criminal juries are legion, as everybody knows, they are in the main the folly of acquitting the guilty rather than of convicting the innocent—and nobody minds very much about that in practice. We have all known criminal juries over and over again come to verdicts which we could only describe as perverse; but they were perverse verdicts of acquittal, and so, quite rightly, nobody


minded. But that has not always been the case.
All of us in this House have recollections of at least two cases, and I think three, in the last three years in which criminal juries have tried matters which I believe would, had they been civil causes, have been tried by special juries—had they been tried by juries at all—where the juries have come to perverse verdicts of conviction when there was, in fact, no evidence to justify convictions, and where I assert and believe there would have been acquittals had the tribunals been special juries. One, as the House will recollect, was the Tarran case; and the House will also recollect the Weitzman case, where again the Court of Criminal Appeal held that there was absolutely no evidence against the accused.

Mr. Pritt: rose—

Mr. Hogg: I do not want to be diverted from the point I am making. In the Tarran case the Court of Criminal Appeal spoke in the strongest possible terms. Both the Weitzman case and the Tarran case were cases where ordinary criminal juries brought in verdicts of guilty where it was subsequently held they had no business whatever to do so. I am not satisfied, therefore, that the Attorney-General's analogy with the criminal jury would yield the satisfactory result which he desires, first because the dice are loaded in favour of the accused, and secondly, because, as experience has shown, in prolonged and difficult cases of a kind suitable for special juries to try the criminal jury is not altogether the satisfactory tribunal which he pretends.
Therefore, I do not think that he has advanced any reason why this House should abolish the special jury in civil cases simply because it does not exist in criminal cases. Nor shall I be in the least tempted to draw an absurd conclusion in the opposite direction by being led into advocating the introduction of special juries in criminal cases, which I believe, for quite different reasons, would lead to undesirable complications of its own.

Mr. Paget: Surely in the cases to which the hon. Member referred the blame was with the judge.

Where there is no evidence, it is the duty of the judge not to leave the question to the jury.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. and learned Member has, I think, completely missed the point. Obviously the learned judges were criticised by implication by the court for not withdrawing the matter from the juries altogether; but in neither case did the learned judge direct the jury to find a verdict of guilty; and in neither case could it be suggested that the judge had shown bias against the accused in any shape or form. I have cited the verdict of the jury as a sign that criminal juries are not altogether responsible bodies to deal with even complicated criminal cases. It cannot be denied that those cases are examples—both in their own way examples of great importance—where a criminal jury left to themselves—which is the only mistake the learned judges made in those cases—and after a careful exposition of the evidence, did what they had absolutely no business to do.
I cannot help thinking that many hon. Members opposite have been impressed in their own minds—indeed, how could they fail to have been impressed?—with the suggestion that there is in a special jury some element of political bias. If that were so, which I do not believe to be the case, it could easily be dealt with either under the existing rules or by some small modification of them. If it were to be suggested by either party that in a particular case, considerations of a political character were going to affect the issue, it might well be within the discretion of the Master, or whatever official directed how the case should be tried, to refuse whichever kind of jury it was which was suspected of bias; but in the great majority of cases, when one is dealing with the question whether there shall be a special jury or a common jury, one has no thought of political considerations entering into it.
Sometimes one is appearing for a plaintiff who has been badly injured. On the whole, I am more likely to be appearing for the poor man than for the rich man. I leave the rich man to the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith. There are cases when one thinks that a poor man may get better compensation from a special jury who think more largely in terms of money than a common jury would. In my opinion, at any rate,


where injuries are really serious and earning capacity over a long period, as, for instance, for the rest of a working life, is under consideration, the special jury with its wider and more knowledgeable experience of money is the better tribunal.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Surely that is one of the main objections against the special jury—that one has two systems of justice available in the same court giving two rates of damages or two types of decision, and the decision whether one has one or the other depends on whether one can pay for it or not?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member is wrong. We have not two systems but 17 or 18, because it is equally well known that different judges adopt different methods of generosity in giving damages. If the hon. Member cares to see me afterwards, I will give him some examples of that. What I was seeking to say was that if it is a matter for judicial determination, as I suggest it should be, what the appropriate tribunal is for a particular case, that sort of difficulty ought to be got over, and I believe that in cases where injuries are really serious, a special jury is a better tribunal and more likely to arrive at the truth and at justice than a common jury. We are doing a bad service to those who are seriously injured in accidents by taking away from them what I regard as the advantage of having a special jury in cases appropriate to it.
Hon. Members are forgetting another class of case. Certainly in my experience—not as wide as that of some hon. Members opposite but going over some years now—there are very many cases in which both parties want a special jury because, although they are at difference with one another about everything else, they are at least agreed that having a special and not a common jury is the best way to try the case. They are to be deprived by the Bill of what would be their right. I cannot see why, if both parties want a special jury, they should be denied it. Although I accept what the Attorney-General said to me at the beginning of my remarks, I am convinced that hon. Members opposite have been biased by the result of two or three well-known special jury cases in the past two or three years and that on the whole they have failed to draw the correct moral from

those cases, which is that some people ought to be rather slow in bringing actions about their reputation—in which I include as a class all those who come to the bar of politics on one side or the other—and they have failed to take into account that a special jury is a tribunal which has stood the test of time and experience with remarkably little criticism until these two or three cases came along; and then the criticisms came from those who are manifestly interested on the side of the losing party.
I submit to the House that this part of the Measure is analogous to what has been done by the Socialist majority in the last two years. Whenever anybody does what they do not like, whether it is the publicans or the Press or the Opposition or the House of Lords or even a special jury, then hon. Members clamour for its abolition because they have no love for freedom in this country and because they despise its institutions and hate its privileges.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Bowen: I want to express my general approval and appreciation of the action of the Government in introducing this Measure. Before I make a few comments on matters which have been dealt with by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), I want to take the House back to the perhaps more mundane provisions of the Bill, which I believe to be of rather greater importance than the speeches of the last two hon. Members suggested. After all, special juries have played a very small part in the administration of both our criminal and civil justice for very many years, but the provisions in the Bill relating to payment for jury service will have a marked effect on the jury system. As one of those who sometimes, in common with many other hon. Members, aggravate the inconvenience caused to jurymen by being called for jury service, I should be churlish if I did not welcome the provisions in Part I relating to payment.
However, I feel that those provisions, and particularly those in Clause 1, might be improved in some small way. I am not at all happy about the provisions relating to compensation for loss of earnings. On the whole, it would be more satisfactory if the Bill provided for


the payment to jurors, in all cases, of 10s. for not under four hours, and £1 for any period over, irrespective of the particular circumstances in which a juryman found himself. By introducing a provision of that kind we should certainly simplify matters from an administrative point of view. It would do away with the task, which in many cases will not be an easy one, of deciding whether a juryman qualifies for the allowance or not, and it would avoid any sense of grievance and friction with regard to particular jurymen some of whom might be given an allowance and some of whom might not. The additional cost would not be considerable, and it would result in a far smoother running of this part of the Bill.
Take the housewife. Normally when a housewife is called upon for jury service she will not be entitled to the 10s. or the £1. On the other hand, the fact that a housewife is called upon for jury service may well entail additional expenditure for her household. It might well be that the other members of the household have to take their meals out because of her absence, thus incurring additional expenditure. These cases would be covered if it were the general rule that jurymen should be paid for their services, irrespective of their profession.
I welcome the assurances of the Attorney-General about the self-employed person. When any question of allowances arises, there is always a danger of dealing only with the wage-earner and of forgetting the position, which may be equally serious, of the self-employed man. I share the anxiety of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) about the provisions concerning travelling and subsistence. In my constituency many jurymen cannot possibly travel to the assize town by public transport if they are to travel there on the same day as that on which the assize is held, so that the payment of the third-class railway fare certainly will not cover their actual travelling expenses.
I do not know exactly what the phrase "subsistence allowance" means. It has been suggested that the allowance will not exceed 5s. a day. In many assize towns in Wales it would certainly be a saving of public money if the regulations

covered an allowance for expenses for staying the night at the assize town. Sometimes jurymen will be called for two or three days and if they have to travel backwards and forwards to their residence it will increase the amount of public money involved. I hope that when this matter is looked into again, provision will be made to cover all those circumstances. I have looked at a Bill containing provisions similar to these, which was before the House in 1921. A phrase used in that Bill was more likely to meet the circumstances arising in rural areas. It spoke of
travelling and other expenses reasonably and properly incurred by the carrying out of jury service.
It might be of assistance if a change of that kind could be made.
While the introduction of payment for jurors is clearly an abundantly desirable step, there are one or two dangers about it and something should be done to safeguard ourselves. Is there not a danger of the sheriff or the clerk of the peace being tempted, when selecting jurors, to choose those who are not likely to impose substantial expenses on the county or the Treasury? I feel that there is some danger in that respect. We may get certain areas near assize towns selected for the drawing of jurymen. Are we to have the Treasury or the county council asserting themselves and asking that fewer jurymen should be called for service in order to keep down expenses? If we do, the administration of the business of the court may be hampered by the absence of an adequate number of jurymen to carry on the work.

Mr. Paget: Does it really matter that a judge may sometimes have to wait for an hour instead of having jurors in waiting hanging about for days, as so often happens?

Mr. Bowen: It is a question of balance. One can imagine many assize courts and quarter sessions where there may be only one criminal case for trial and if enough jurymen are not there, probably the case has to go over to the next day, and the judge may have to be at another assize the next day. I agree that on occasions far too many jurymen are called, but the proper judge of the number of jurymen to be called is certainly not the Treasury.

Mr. Hale: Is the hon. Member suggesting that a county council would cut the costs so that there would not be enough jurymen to try one case?

Mr. Bowen: Say, for the sake of argument, that in order to save costs 12 jurymen are called and it is then found that some of them are disqualified. For instance, where a jury is present and a man is put up about whose character they have heard something, there has to be a new set of jurymen to deal with the matter. The hon. Member knows well that complications arise in this way. All I feel is that nothing should be done to hamper the ordinary machinery.
There is a danger, too, in regard to civil cases. The learned Attorney talked about the fundamental right of trial by jury. Of course there is a fundamental right in criminal cases but, as I understand it, there is a complete discretion in civil actions, a discretion which unfortunately today is exercised rather against the granting of juries. I hope the fact that some expense will be incurred now for common jurymen in civil cases, will not in any way influence the exercise of that discretion. Certainly, costs of litigation could be reduced in many ways, but this is not a way which would be for the ultimate public good. Equally, of course, in criminal cases, it would be undesirable if the question of the expenditure of public money is to influence magistrates as to whether they commit or not.
I am not altogether happy about the provisions relating to payment, though it is a small point. As I understand it, the method to be employed is that the clerk of assize will certify the payment which will be made at the assize by the treasurer, or someone acting on his behalf, for the authority liable to pay. In many cases, that will mean that an official of the council has to spend all the time the assize is sitting in carrying out this work, which probably will not take more than 15 or 20 minutes. Some people do not realise that, in many instances, the offices of the authority which is paying may be in quite a different place from that in which the assize is held. For example, in my own county the County Treasurer's offices are 30 miles away from where the assize is held, and it seems a waste of the time of another official to be present during the whole of the assize to carry out what is a small administra-

tive matter. I notice again that in the 1921 Act provision was made for payment by the officers of the court. While that puts additional duties on them, it would eliminate a considerable wastage of the time of a local government official.
I share the view expressed by the learned Attorney in regard to special juries, although I find it difficult to reconcile his statement that in doing away with the special juries we are doing away with an anachronism, with the fact that at the same time we are not proposing to do anything at all about the abolition of the property qualification for a common jury. If a special jury is an anachronism, surely the continuance of a property qualification for a common jury is an equal anachronism? I accepted the premise of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), but I thought he went from a right premise to a wrong conclusion; that is to say, I agreed with him when he extolled the virtues of the jury as judges of fact, and I share with him the view that a far greater use should be made of juries in determining fact in civil cases, but to suggest that the present differentiation between common and special juries will give a better fact-finding tribunal in civil cases, is one with which I certainly do not agree.
If the hon. Member had put his case on the ground that there might be an argument in certain types of civil cases for having people with more specialised experience of the world than the ordinary rank and file, there might be something in that, but the suggestion that that is achieved today by the difference in qualifications in those required for a common jury and a special jury does not bear examination. I hope the learned Attorney-General will think again about the property qualification for it would be in accordance with the spirit of this Bill if that substantial change were made. In my constituency, for example, which is of quite a different type from that of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), the same result is produced. The number of people qualified for common jury service is very limited and the result is that the burden is inflicted on a far more limited class of people than it should be.
My observation of common juries is that one rarely today gets young people on juries, that is, people under 35. That is most unfortunate. Service on a jury


by young people might well have a salutary effect upon them. The fact that they have to play a part in the administration of justice would bring to them a consciousness of their public duty. When young people are being dealt with, as they mostly are in our quarter sessions today, it is unsatisfactory that the jury are all drawn from a certain age group in the community. The learned Attorney talked about people's courts and the special selection of people. In fact that is what we are doing today; it is a special selection of people, based on a property qualification.
To sum up, I think there might be some improvement with regard to the payment of jury service. I hope that the Government will look again at the property qualification of common juries. Whether or not a case could be made out for a different jury in civil cases, drawn with some other qualification, I do not know, but certainly the differentiation should not be on the basis on which special and common juries are differentiated today.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I wish to reply a little to the hon. and not yet learned Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) who claimed to be unaware of his own personal bias and acclaimed the virtue of objectivity. I think objectivity is not a virtue. I have never known anybody devoid of personal bias and, quite frankly, I hope I never shall, because I am sure such persons would be extremely dull. Certainly I make no such claim myself; I am biased in favour of the things in which I believe.
The hon. Member talked about a special jury giving better justice and better consideration. That is a typical example of perfectly natural upper-middle class bias, leading him to believe that people like himself are more intelligent than the working class. There never was a greater fallacy in the history of man. Of course it is not only a question of qualities, of actual quickness of thought or repartee. I remember one example from what was one of the best juries before whom I ever appeared. On the 17th day of the case I heard two of the jurymen exchanging notes outside the court. One said, "I have not the remotest idea of what this case is about, have you?" and the other said,
"No."

Mr. Hogg: Counsel were at fault.

Mr. Pritt: It may be, but it proves my point because they had eminent middle-class counsel on both sides. There is something much more serious than just a question of the quality or the quickness of mind, namely, the political bias. The hon. Member said that there are purely theoretical political questions and that political bias has nothing to do with it. I suppose I can claim in this country alone, to have appeared in more political cases than almost any other member of the Bar. I remember the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and myself going to one of the Crown Colonies in which, before I got there, he had succeeded in persuading the court that it was so biased that it could not sit—certainly one of the most remarkable triumphs of his courage and sincerity—and he was absolutely right.
We never see a working-class jury. It just does not happen. Every case in which the working-classes are involved—which means some of the civil cases and nine-tenths of the criminal cases, because your criminal law is a middle-class law and a criminal case is a case in which one side is trying the other. I remember a case in Bristol some years ago where an ordinary working-class person was charged with sedition. I shall not give the name of the learned judge, but he was quite confident that he would get a conviction. I will not say what he felt, although I could see what he felt, when there was an acquittal. The explanation was that by some strange mischance of the rise in the value of property, there was a working-class jury which, naturally and properly, acquitted the man.
There has been reference to one well known litigant who is also well known as a political philosopher. He has often spoken and written of the unconscious major premise. The ordinary middle-class juryman, like the extraordinary hon. Member for Oxford, quite unconsciously is biased. He suffers from an unconscious major premise. The same philosopher wrote that if you live in a bourgeois country you get bourgeois justice, while if you live in a Socialist country you get Socialist justice. We want real justice. We cannot get it by getting middle-class juries to try nine-tenths of the population who are not middle-class. That is


why I hope that the strongly held but moderately expressed views which have come and will come from a good many other hon. Members will have their effect on the Attorney-General and on the Government, and that we shall not merely abolish special juries, but also the property qualification.
The hon. Member for Oxford gave us a longish and quite interesting lecture on the merits of the jury system. I shall not discuss that because it is only barely relevant to the question of whether, since we have juries, we should have them without a property qualification and, in particular, should abolish special juries. I was a little puzzled by his explanation that it did not really matter that juries in criminal cases behaved, as he thought, rather stupidly, because they generally acquitted the guilty, and that did not matter—I think it does. He then went on to illustrate the proposition that they wrongly acquit by mentioning two notorious cases in which they convicted when there was no evidence. I am not quite sure how far that argument goes.
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) wants to make quite sure that the payment to jurors is reasonably generous. There is nothing with which I could possibly agree more. I have wanted to move actively to get real general working-class qualifications for jurors for years but I have always been held back by the practical consideration—certainly in a constituency of the size of his, and even in a small constituency—that to take a working-class man away and let him lose two or three days' pay, and let him pay for his own journeys and food and give him, I think, a shilling is impossible; to put it at its lowest, I should not be very popular with the working-class if I did that. Therefore, I have been waiting patiently for the arrival of some form of payment so that I can do this. I agree that it ought to be generous.
The hon. Member for Cardigan expressed a little anxiety whether county councils and similar bodies would be inclined to see if they could get their juries "on the cheap" by selecting them from the nearest areas. I doubt whether they are as mean as all that. But to select a jury on the principle that they are nearest the court is at any rate a great deal better than what has often happened, that is, to select them on the principle

that they are nearest to the Government's desire for convictions.
I venture to question the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman about keeping a local government servant hanging about all the week in order to make payments to the jury. Is it not a fact that somebody has to be there all the week to make payments to witnesses and the small payments made in some cases to the prosecutors? If so, could not the same person also pay the jury? This is a small point but one worthy of consideration. On the main point, of course, I support the Bill. I am anxious to see the special jury go, and to have the property qualification abolished. As to the City of London special jury, we have almost got rid of the City of London and I dare say we shall get rid of its jury soon.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) was good enough to admit to some bias in this matter. I suppose none of us would be in any doubt about that. He frankly admitted that in many matters he had a political bias. His bias in favour of things which emanate from the Soviet Union is well known. I have little doubt that if it rested with the hon. and learned Gentleman he would prefer to substitute in this country a system of justice which more approached the Soviet system than that which now exists here. I do not know what juries they have in the Soviet Union—

Mr. Pritt: The hon. and learned Member should talk about something he does know.

Mr. Marlowe: I was merely informing the House, as I felt bound to do, that I would bow to the hon. and learned Member in his knowledge of what system of justice operates under the Soviet regime. I confess I do not know. But the hon. and learned Member does and might prefer to institute that system here. The hon. and learned Gentleman, together with the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), made it quite clear that they approached this matter from the political end. That is a grave mistake. This is not a political question at all.

Mr. Hale: rose—

Mr. Marlowe: I am reinforced in my view by the hon. Gentleman opposite who


gives a hollow laugh, thereby making it quite clear that he endorses the view that this is a political question.

Mr. Hale: Is the hon. and learned Member informing the House that he does not believe in politics?

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I was stating my view that this is not a political question. We are dealing with the question of what is the appropriate type of jury to try certain cases in the courts. That appears to have no relation whatever to politics. How can the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) suggest, for instance, that a Factory Act case, a running-down case or, indeed, many libel and slander cases which are not political, necessarily have, in fact, a political implication of their own? There are an enormous number of cases in which politics do not enter into one side or the other.

Mr. Paget: Is the hon. and learned Member really suggesting that politics do not enter into a case between an employer and an employee?

Mr. Marlowe: Of course they do not. If the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has that feeling himself when he enters a court, it may have a considerable bearing on the result.

Mr. Bing: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman consider it quite fair that the jury in a case which affects the rights of property should be chosen exclusively from the property class?

Mr. Marlowe: Obviously there are cases where politics enter, such as, for instance, those in which sometimes hon. Gentlemen or an hon. Lady opposite are plaintiffs. Of course politics enter into such cases but the great majority of cases are not in the least concerned with politics. It is for the great majority of both cases that we must legislate.

Mr. Pritt: We must legislate for all.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Member for Hornchurch, if I understood him aright, sought to deride the case for the jury altogether on any property qualification by certain figures which he gave from his own constituency. It is not the fault of this House if a Socialist majority in his division has not provided sufficient

housing accommodation to give the proper property qualification.
The case with which we are concerned relates really to two matters: one, whether jurors should receive payment, and the other, whether we should continue the distinction between a common and a special jury. I want to say at once that I am not myself so enthusiastic as many hon. Members in all parts of the House appear to be on the question of payment. I suppose we have arrived at the time when, obviously, expenses must be covered. I do not think anybody would dispute that. But I am not at all sure that it is necessary to go to the extent of paying people for doing a public function which for generations has been part of the voluntary system of this country. I abhor the general disappearance of the voluntary system in all public work. This trend, unfortunately, is spreading. I have noticed that it comes increasingly with the age of Socialism and the materialism which follows with Socialism.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: rose—

Mr. Marlowe: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said about covering people's expenses. Nobody would suggest that anything which was paid to a jury before, has done more than cover their expenses. We are now coming to the point where, probably, we shall more than cover their expenses by meting out a reward in addition.

Mr. Silverman: I was about to query the use of the word "voluntary." Jury service in this country may have been done for nothing, but, surely, it was never voluntary?

Mr. Marlowe: I meant "voluntary" not in the sense that they attended of their own free will, because they were, of course, called to attend on juries, but that they did not receive payment other than a nominal sum towards their expenses.
I want to devote my next remarks to the question of the abolition of special juries. I cannot accept the challenge of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who adopted the technique of saying that we on this side must make out the case. It is he who is proposing abolition. It is hon. Gentlemen opposite who are putting


up the case; it is for them to establish their case, not for us to establish the contrary. I accept the proposition of the Lord President of the Council who has taken that view more than once on nationalisation, when he has said that those who are proposing it have the onus of making out the case. Similarly, those who are making out the case for the abolition of the special jury have upon them the onus of establishing that it is the right thing to do.
It is certainly a remarkable coincidence that there has been no pressure for the abolition of special juries until certain hon. Gentlemen opposite, or those associated with them, had unfortunate incidents in the courts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman nods his head and I accept, of course, what he said before, that it had been his personal view for many years—

The Attorney-General: rose—

Mr. Marlowe: May I finish this first? He said it had been his personal view for many years; what I said was that there had been no pressure until, over the last two or three years, these particular cases took place.

The Attorney-General: I rose only in case the OFFICIAL REPORT should convey some misapprehension. I did not nod my head. I shook my head and I did so because this matter was actively canvassed over 20 years ago when a departmental committee considered it.

Mr. Marlowe: So that there should be no misunderstanding I will, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes it, mention that he was indicating a negative by some movement of his head.
The position as I understand it, and as I assert again, is that there has been no real pressure for this change in the law until these cases took place in which the party opposite have been concerned.

The Attorney-General: indicated dissent.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: rose—

Mr. Marlowe: I do not propose to give way. I am not unreasonable in declining to do so, for I do not want to detain the House longer than is necessary.
I come now to such case as the right hon. and learned Gentleman tried to

make. He was somewhat misleading in the way in which he put it. More than once he referred to this matter as affecting rich and poor. Anyone who did not know how these things work might well be left with the impression that whether or not one gets a special jury is a question of whether one is rich or poor. Of course, that is not so. Whether or not a special jury is granted in a case is a question which is decided by the appropriate authority, the Master. If necessary, an appeal may be made to a judge, so that the question—

Mr. Hale: rose—

Mr. Marlowe: —is decided not by the poverty or wealth of the litigant, but by the litigants themselves. If there is a dispute between them the matter is decided by the competent authority. The hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well.

Mr. Hale: It is not true.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that either party may apply for a special jury and that both sides may be in agreement. In that case there will be no difficulty. But if one side wants a special jury and the other side does not, they are free to go before the Master for a decision.

Mr. Paget: That is completely wrong.

Mr. Marlowe: I am not going to argue here what takes place on a summons of that kind. I have merely stated the general proposition that the parties have the right to go before the Master. It was somewhat misleading to convey the impression that it is a matter of wealth. It is clear that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to do by this Bill is to reduce all to a common standard, the standard of the common jury. That is regrettable. So far as it is necessary for us to make out a case for the retention of the special jury, I should put it in these terms. It is a question of obtaining trial by peers—which means, of course, trial by those of equal status.
It is obviously impossible to categorise every possible status in which different people live, but it is possible to make a broad distinction between those cases which are more suitable to a common jury and those which are more suitable to a special jury. I am not going to


elaborate that, because my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford City (Mr. Hogg) dealt with it adequately. But there are certain cases in which, by reason of the difference of standard of living, a special jury are likely to give greater compensation than a common jury is likely to give. Many hon. Members opposite must in the past have been interested in cases in which they were only too glad that special juries gave larger compensation than otherwise would have been the case.
I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith has gone out of the Chamber, because I should have liked to ask him in how many cases he has advised a special jury—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: rose—

Mr. Marlowe: I am sorry I cannot give way again. I am willing to wager that the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith has often advised a special jury for the very reason which I am putting forward. If the right and learned Gentleman really believes there is a case for this, he should establish it, rather than throw upon us the onus of establishing the opposite. This system has worked with complete satisfaction for generations and there has never been any real complaint. I hold the jury in high regard and, broadly speaking, I have never known a jury make a mistake. They always arrive at a true, commonsense, answer in the end. There may be technical reasons for disagreeing with them on appeal sometimes and, of course, there are the prejudices which all people have in thinking that the jury have not arrived at correct views. But, if it is possible to take an unbiased view, broadly speaking, the jury always arrive at the right commonsense answer. Therefore, I should like to see them retained, and retained on the same basis as they have worked in the past. This Bill is a piece of class prejudice, introduced because hon. Members opposite have suffered because they went to law when they should not have gone to law.

6.2 p.m.

Mrs. Braddock: The remarks which I wish to make are, perhaps, not the remarks I might have made in different circumstances. Had it not been that I have been in difficulties

about the decision of a special jury and that a case is in the hands of the Court of Appeal, I might have had something to say very different from what I say now, or, at any rate, something very much stronger.
I appreciate the Bill and I think it will have the support of the majority of right-thinking people throughout the country. I believe the special jury, in the sense in which the Attorney-General spoke of it, is an anachronism which was introduced by the ruling class of this country to protect their property. As far as my personal position is concerned, the fact that they are to be abolished gives me a great amount of satisfaction. I wish to support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) on the question of the abolition of the property qualification for jurors. The hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) said he never knew a jury to make a mistake. I have been personally interested where juries have made mistakes and not special juries—

Mr. Marlowe: Would the hon. Lady agree that whether or not they have made a mistake is always a matter of opinion?

Mrs. Braddock: If it were not a matter of opinion there would not be quite so many decisions going to courts of appeal and courts of appeal would not arrive at different decisions in many instances. I remember a case in 1932 in which my husband was concerned, where a jury found, on evidence on which sensible working-class people would never have found, that he was actually in a place where he never was. Arising out of that, a sentence of six months imprisonment was enforced. On appeal, the Lord Chief Justice completely changed the decision which was given. That case cost a lot of money and a lot of personal difficulty.
Juries are not always drawn from the areas in which the cases arise and they have not the atmosphere of those areas, nor do they know the circumstances in which the case arose. I do not know how the list from which common juries are selected is prepared. The responsibility for picking out the people who will serve on the juries is left completely to the clerk of the court. There is something wrong with that method. There should be some method whereby they are selected in some other way than by


leaving the selection to the responsibility of the clerk of the court. Those are matters which I believe should be dealt with in a Bill of this sort.
If we are to change the method of dealing with trial by jury, we should not play about with it in a small way. These Measures do not come to the House very often. It is usually discovered that another generation entirely alters fundamental principles in relation to law, and this Bill alters the position which has existed over the period since 1825. When making serious alterations we ought to deal with the position entirely and alter the whole position where difficulties have been found. In working-class areas under the present law not one person can be starred on the register to be a juror because of the property qualification. That means that juries come from residential areas, in some instances a few miles, and in some instances 10 or 15 miles distant from where an action takes place. When a person comes before a jury for some misdemeanour it is necessary to have the atmosphere of the area in which it happened. That is particularly important in political cases. It is very well known, and ought to be stated, that there is no justice of any sort in this country in certain types of political cases which come before juries. That is a definite statement to make and I think it can be proved by looking at the cases which have been dealt with in relation to political matters.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. Lady to say that there is no justice in this country in relation to particular types of cases? Is that not an attack on the courts and, if not, has it anything to do with this Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I do not think the hon. Lady is making an attack on a particular judge, nor do I think there is any objection to what she is saying from a procedural point of view.

Mrs. Braddock: I am expressing an opinion. I thought that is what we were expected to do, in order that the feelings of people who have been concerned with this sort of thing and have watched the situation should be represented. I make it my business whenever there is an assize in my city, to find some time to go into the courts to listen and to watch the way in which things are being done. It would

be useful if lots of other people did so. It is important, if people are taking responsibility for expressing opinions and suggesting that there should be alterations, that they should make it their business to listen and watch and find out the methods used in dealing with questions of this sort.
For instance, an hon. and learned Member opposite may say, "You always have the opportunity of objecting to a person on a jury. You can always say, "I object to such and such a person.'" But in what circumstances can one object? In certain circumstances, for instance, where there have been struggles to obtain better conditions, or there have been unemployed demonstrations where the police have used batons and people have been arrested, would it be in order in such political cases for the accused to say, "I object to the whole of the members of the jury because I believe they are politically biased in relation to what they have to try"? One may pick out individuals and say one objects, but it is almost impossible in a political case, whether there is a special or a common jury, to be able to get a case dealt with properly and rightly. I am making these statements deliberately because I have had something to do with them and I know what I am talking about. It is almost impossible to get a correct verdict from a jury selected in the circumstances in which either special or common juries are selected today.
I hope to have the opportunity of supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch in the Amendment he has suggested. I think it would be very much easier and less complicated if every able bodied person between 21 and 65 who has not the disqualification of having been convicted, or is not ineligible for some other reason could be selected for jury service. Then and then only would we get a cross-section of opinion throughout the country. In listening to cases I have been amazed that there have been so few juries which have disagreed. If there had been a different way of selecting them and providing a cross-section of opinion, there would have been many more disagreements in juries and fewer juries which were unanimous in certain decisions. It is quite obvious, in many instances, that people who have taken an entirely different view, on a jury very often take the majority view, and do


not express their own opinion or say that they disagree with the opinion expressed.
Many alterations should be made and the two most important are a complete abandonment of the property qualifications for serving on a jury and a completely new and more democratic method of selecting from the lists as jurors, people who will sit on particular cases. Every hon. Member would say that anything that is secret is always open to some sort of suspicion. I have never been able to find out how names are selected. Perhaps whoever replies to the Debate will tell us how they are selected for a common or special jury. Is it a fact, as has been suggested to me, that in a certain locality there is a list from which the clerk of the court picks out particular names of persons who, in his opinion, ought to sit on the jury? If that is the position it is time it was changed; indeed, the time for its change is overdue. I hope that when we are considering the administration of this Bill the question of the method of selection and the types of juries which up to now have been selected to deal with particular cases will be looked into and that the whole administrative system will be altered.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I am sorry the Attorney-General has had the somewhat unusual experience of having nothing but encomiums lavished upon him in connection with this Bill. Although he cannot think that he has had a great deal of assistance from the benches opposite, there has not been a great deal of criticism. In my view the Bill is like the curate's egg, in that it has its satisfactory parts, though I regret that this important subject has been brought before the House in a Bill which merely deals with one aspect of it and that we are not having at this stage a full inquiry into aspects of the jury system which are of great importance. There is the right of challenge, which is something, the right of remuneration, and many controversial aspects.
The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) made a speech which began with the right premises and finished, as the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) has said, with the wrong conclusions. It finished with something which is becoming endemic with the hon. Member—this

device of the portable soapbox or peripatetic peroration. He finishes each speech with two or three minutes of venom which rather regrettably dissipates the value of his previous remarks. The hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) divided his speech into two parts. He spoke first about what he called politics, which he regarded as something partisan and controversial and something to be deprecated. When we on this side of the House use the term, we mean matters of sociology, ethics, idealism and justice. It is natural that when he got to this rather ominous word he should have used it as would a schoolboy of about fourteen years of age who has not been fully trained in these matters. I shall not deal with his speech in that connection. I did quarrel with his free legal advice to the House, which was of such inaccuracy that I beg him not to give any more until he has referred to one of the elementary text books on the matter such as Jones's Solicitor's Clerk, which deals with this matter very thoroughly and which is exceedingly cheap.
The position so far as the special jury is concerned is that the Master has no discretion. Once an application is made and it is decided that a case can be decided by a special jury either party can, by paying 13 guineas, demand a special jury. There has been argument as to whether a special jury is good for you or not. It depends on the circumstances. The hon. Member for Oxford offered to give me the benefit of his long experience with regard to judges, and quoted examples of their idiosyncracies. As the cases in which I have been engaged in assizes run into thousands I am not without some appreciation of the fact that His Majesty's justices do not run at 100 per cent. level. There are differences of temperament, object and outlook which might qualify their views on particular matters, and one expects little more.
Roughly speaking, if one is acting for a plaintiff at the assizes in a case in which one is certain of a verdict but there is a question of damages, one asks for a special jury. If one is appearing for an insurance company in which the plaintiff is a pedestrian and the defendant a motorist the insurance company asks for a special jury. It is quite a standard line for them to take, that for thirteen guineas


they can get a jury of motorists who will strongly disapprove of a pedestrian walking across a pedestrian crossing at night without wearing a rear light. I have acted on both sides in this sort of case and that is the way it generally works. It is not a desirable or a proper system.
I believe in the jury much more strongly than the hon. Member for Oxford expressed himself, although he came to a hesitant affirmative in the sense that we ought to have the jury. I believe it to be a fundamental bulwark of our constitution. My hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) has given the result of her own personal observations, experiences and reminiscences so far as political cases are concerned. I can remember 1926. I can remember the time when there was not much justice in Parliament, when special regulations were being rushed out to deal with the special situation, and if there was any impartial justice being administered in the country at that time, I was unfortunate in that I was not able to see it. I have great respect for our courts and I would not say one word to weaken them but it is inevitable that, as has been said, we as individuals are biased by our approach to the matter. I was appearing today in a case between employer and workman. The employer happened to be the National Coal Board. I do not gather that either side receded from the opinions they went to the court to express. The fact that a court gives a decision never convinces a man he was necessarily wrong.
There must be a new approach to this matter. We must have one system and only one of dealing with these matters. We are not now in the Dark Ages, when there was an educated class and a class which was incapable of appreciating matters of fact. We have an educated proletariat and a healthy one, which is absolutely competent to take on this duty. The fundamental of the jury is that we get 12 ordinary people, and if they all come to the same conclusion it is a pretty sane conclusion. It is the unanimity of the jury rather than its individual excellence, that constitutes its importance.
I repeat that the jury is a fundamental bulwark of our constitution. The whole story of our political progress is

made up of a few individual juries who stood in their box and said, "We will stand for the right, even if you wrongly imprison us"—the people who tried Nicholas Throgmorton and William Penn down to the political trials of the 1790's and the 1820's. It was the jury which time after time stood as the one bulwark. If one reads the reminiscences afterwards written by famous judges, one will see that in those days the establishment of a complete political dictatorship in this country was thwarted only by the independence and courage of juries.

Mr. Hogg: That surely relates to the criminal case?

Mr. Hale: I agree.

Mr. Hogg: I think the hon. Member did me an injustice. I was not being in the least hesitant about a jury for civil or criminal procedings. I added some qualifications to my enthusiasm for the civil jury, qualifications which I think upon reflection the hon. Member would recognise are fairly widely shared.

Mr. Hale: I am obliged to the hon. Member, and I quite agree that his intervention is perfectly justified and correct. He was speaking about the civil jury.
As the hon. Member for Cardigan has said, it is very regrettable that although there has been a restoration of the privileges of summoning a jury, which were abolished in the war period, the exercise of discretion is now much more limited. It is much more difficult to get a jury in a civil case than it was a few years ago. It is exceedingly important that one should be able to have a jury in a civil case. As I have said, I believe it is exceedingly important that if there is to be a jury, it must be a jury of the community.
This matter is important from another and completely different point of view. I believe that the right, obligation and duty to partake in our administration of justice is fundamental. Everyone ought to partake in it and everyone should have some limited training to do it. In every school there should be a few lectures and talks given by competent people on the fundamental principles of justice and on the fundamental principles upon which justice should be provided. I say that, because the belief in the independence, in the integrity, in the essential


rightness of our courts of law is a fundamental principle which I find is shared by all Englishmen except those who have been there. Everyone talks about our wonderful system of justice until they find themselves in the dock, in the witness box or as a litigant. I get complaints from people who should be taking part in shaping these matters saying, "Is that how it goes?" when they go to court themselves. Later they think that they were the victim of a special injustice or an arbitrary procedure, and within a few months they are back to their old theory that the administration of justice has nothing but commendable features.
Therefore, I think it right that everybody should have the opportunity of partaking in the administration of justice, and particularly the opportunity of serving on a jury—everyone apart from the special exceptions which exist. I am not sure, without looking at those exceptions, whether I would agree to an exception being made in their case. There may be reasons why, for example, a professional lawyer may not serve on a jury because he may have a connection with cases.

Mr. Paget: There might be two lawyers on a jury, in which case one would never get them to agree.

Mr. Hale: I have never found it difficult to get agreement in my own section of the profession. The unanimity of the Law Society in these days commands the respect and envy of everybody.
I wish to emphasise what the hon. Member for Cardigan said to the effect that if we are to have a system of justice in which the property qualification is abolished, and we say that every adult should be liable to serve on a jury and have a duty to serve on a jury, we have to see that persons called upon are adequately remunerated for it. We cannot worry about this principle for the sake of a few shillings. I remember going home with the foreman of the jury who had acquitted my client after my client had, in my absence, pleaded guilty. The plea was altered, on advice, to one of not guilty. When I expressed to the foreman of the jury my surprise at the acquittal in view of the circumstances he said "My boy, we were sitting until the last

thing at night, and the last train for Coalville left at 9.5."
If the jury are to be summoned they should be summoned without any financial worries being caused to them. As a famous judge said, it is not really right that a man should be tried for his life by a chemist whose thoughts are concerned as to whether his errand boy is dispensing poisons in his absence.

Mr. Hogg: Is that got rid of by paying the man?

Mr. Hale: No, but by giving him a sufficient allowance for him to pay someone to take his place while he is away. The principle is the same for the housewife as for the chemist. Further, jurors who are summoned to a distant town should have adequate lodging provided as a matter of course.
There is only one other point I wish to raise. I am sorry to say to the Attorney-General as a Lancashire Member that I line up very strongly with the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) in saying that there is no ground for the proposition that the City of London knows much about commerce. It knows a lot about finance, something about insurance and a little about shipping. But the centre of commerce in the country is Manchester, and has been for a long time.

The Attorney-General: Has my hon. Friend forgotten Liverpool?

Mr. Hale: I am anxious not to direct the whole searchlight of public inquiry upon my right hon. and learned Friend's own failure in respect of Liverpool. I did not mention Liverpool, which has certain knowledge also. There is no warrant for this proposition that there shall be a special jury in the City of London which should not operate anywhere else. Nevertheless this is a point of real difficulty. Everybody knows that there are cases of such complexity that, generally speaking, as the hon. and learned Gentleman for Hammersmith said, nobody understands them from start to finish. Very often the solicitor's clerk starts off with a fair comprehension of the general principles involved, but after that it gets out of hand, and goes haywire, and one is left in a difficulty. It may be that there is something in the theory that a jury of a specially skilled


type may be likely to give a more profound or a more detailed decision than a common jury. I do not know, but I doubt it. But there cannot be any argument along those lines for abolishing a special jury itself on the ground that it gives a special privilege in civil cases which is not available in criminal cases. There cannot be an argument even in the City of London, for having a special jury to try the question of whether insurance should be paid on a sunken ship and an ordinary jury to try the man who sunk it, for the offence of sinking it.
In my view the whole force of the argument and the whole weight of the argument is against retaining any special jury at all, but if we are to retain a sort of special jury for commercial cases, and I am against it, clearly Manchester has just as good a claim as the City of London, and could produce a much better jury. On the whole I think the balance of the argument is against retaining this special jury in the City of London at all. I think that it ought to go. Subject to that, and to the comments I have made, I am prepared to give a hesitant blessing to this Bill on its Second Reading.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Paget: The first point I would like to make is that it is quite unreal and quite hypocritical to think or imagine that politics do not enter into the administration of justice. One of the greatest political instruments of history has been the jury. It has been the mainstay of our Constitution. It has maintained the civil liberty of our people and has proved the most effective instrument yet discovered by political man for that purpose. That is one aspect of the matter.
The other aspect is this. When we, or any of us, take our minds to judgment we take a mind that has been conditioned by our environment, by our experiences, by, in a word, our prejudices. We take those prejudices with us to judgment and the more we are unconscious of those prejudices, the more dangerous are we as judges. That is why I feel that the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) would be such a terrifying judge—because he seems to imagine that he is unprejudiced.
I have defended in a very large number of political cases all over the country

and the advice which I used to give to my clients, generally political agitators, was this: "Try to elect, if you can get it, for a trial by a rural bench, because there you will have people who are conscious of their political prejudice and who will therefore try and eliminate it. You will get a far better trial from a Tory rural bench than you will get from any jury, because, in a sense, they will try to lean over backwards." That is my experience, and that is the advice which I have very often given.
I am quite convinced that in the class of jury, that is the common jury, which is drawn from a very small section of the community in the lower middle classes, it is not possible in England today to get a fair and unprejudiced trial. I will return to that point in a moment, but I wish to say a word or two with regard to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Oxford. He said that, from the pragmatic point of view, one would not get such a good jury if one abolished this system of special juries; that there were cases where there was bulky correspondence which it required a skilled and trained man to understand; that evidence went on for long days; that it was difficult to remember. Does the hon. Member really imagine that a man understands bulky correspondence better because he has 15 windows in his house instead of 14? Because that is the distinction between the two.

Mr. Hogg: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had done me the courtesy of listening to what I was saying, he would know perfectly well that I said nothing of the kind. I said that I found a special jury was a better tribunal for a certain class of case, and I still say so.

Mr. Paget: What I am saying is this, that the distinction between the special jury and the common jury is not the distinction of education; it is not the distinction of knowledge; it is not a distinction of experience; it is simply a distinction as to the size of the house they happen to live in. The difference between the two in their intelligence or capacity to understand I should have thought was none at all.
Here I personally disagree with the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale). The City of London special jury sitting


in the commercial court is a very different pair of shoes. The City of London jury may, technically, have a property qualification—I am not quite certain whether it does—but it is in fact a panel of experts. The people who are put on that City of London list—I do not know by whom—are selected experts, all understanding the particular commercial issues which they will be called upon to try. They have no relation or similarity at all to the ordinary special jury and, again, on the pragmatic test, I think that they have done admirable service, and I am very glad to see them retained. I am not against the principle of a special jury. I think special juries for certain types of cases would be very valuable. What I am against, and what I say is utterly indefensible, is that the distinction between a special jury and a common jury—between the sheep and the goats—should be the house they live in. That is quite fantastic.
With regard to the advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury, I believe that in civil actions they are fairly equally balanced. I would say that the main advantage of trial by jury is that a jury has to keep its mouth shut until it has heard all the evidence. A judge, on the other hand, has to control the trial as well as decide it at the end. It is extremely difficult for a judge who has this dual function not to commit himself, and in his own mind commit himself, at a stage before he has heard all the evidence. A jury which has to keep its mouth shut until it has heard the lot is therefore, I think, generally in a rather better position to judge.
As against that, it means that in a lot of cases the time of a number of people is wasted on a comparatively trivial issue and a case is made to last very much longer. Therefore I think that the division as to the type of case in which we get a jury and the type of case in which we do not is not a bad one—again applying this purely pragmatic test which the hon. Member for Oxford asks us to apply. Today, largely speaking, civil juries are libel juries, and I would make the point that it is very important not only that justice should be done, but that justice should seem to be done. With a special jury, to a very large number of people,

generally litigants themselves, it does not seem that justice is done in libel actions which involve a political issue.
Where there is a newspaper involved in a libel action which has a political aspect, and the defendant belongs to my party or parties to the left of my party, it is quite certain that that newspaper will ask for a special jury. It is equally quite certain that that plaintiff will not ask for a special jury. Why is this? Because the newspaper believes that it will get a political advantage from that special jury and the plaintiff thinks that he will get a political disadvantage. I am not saying for a moment that they are right or wrong, but that is what they believe. Personally, I think they are wrong. I believe that the real hard core of reaction lies in the sort of property class from which the common jury is called. But most people think that a special jury provides a political advantage and justice does not appear to be done.
Having said that with regard to the special jury, I would turn to the common jury which also has a property qualification which puts outside about 95 per cent. of the community. Only about 5 per cent. of the community qualify for the jury panel. As I understand it, the whole principle of trial by jury is that a man should be tried by his peers, by people brought haphazard from the community as a whole of which he is a member; people who should be a fair cross-section of that community. People who are drawn from a mere 5 per cent. of the community, a 5 per cent. set aside because of a property qualification, are not the ordinary man's peers. They are not representative of the general run of the community.
I would quote some figures from the Borough of Paddington. If we take a working-class ward, where people are comparatively poor, there are in the Queen's Park Ward 7,784 electors, and there are 41 jurors. That is .03 of the population—one in 300 are rich enough in their houses to qualify. In a better class ward of richer people, the Hyde Park Ward, for instance, there are 6,500 electors and 551 jurors. Therefore, all through this country the jurors are, in fact, selected upon a class basis which excludes the vast majority of any man's fellow citizens.
That is the important issue. There is an Amendment on the Order Paper, in the


names of myself and my hon. Friends, which I think indicates sufficiently what we wish to do, and that is to see that the people who shall come upon the jury lists shall be the same people as those who have the civic responsibility of casting their votes. True, it is not their privilege, but perhaps their burden—it is one of the burdens of citizenship—but it is the privilege of the ordinary man to be tried by his fellows, and he is not tried by his fellows unless all his fellows are upon that jury list and the selection is made by chance and hazard, so as to be a real cross-section of the people who are his fellow-citizens. Until that is done, we shall not get the justice to which the ordinary man is entitled as anciently as by Magna Charta. I hope, and indeed feel sure, that the principle of this Amendment will be adopted by this Labour Government, because it is a just and equitable one, and is an establishment of those fundamental principles of liberty upon which the community of this nation has been built.

6.47 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I intervene very briefly because most of the arguments put forward have been entirely on the English side, and this Bill does, of course, apply equally to Scotland. I had thought that the Attorney-General, in the course of his interesting dissertation on the Bill, might have explained to us more particularly the views of Scotland. I should like some explanation to be given to us why Scotland should not be the subject of a separate Bill. After all, the first part of the Bill, consisting of 20 Clauses, deals entirely with England, and the second part, which is quite separate, deals entirely with Scotland and runs to eight Clauses. If the Lord Advocate would give us some explanation, we should be grateful to him. While we welcome the provisions of Part II, it would have been much more convenient if they had been set forth in a separate Scottish Measure, which we could have discussed, in accordance with the new scheme of things, in the Scottish Grand Committee upstairs on Second Reading.
I hope also that the Lord Advocate might see fit to deal with the matter raised by the Attorney-General. Personally, I doubt the historical accuracy of the statement he made, but I may be

mistaken, and, if so, I should like to be corrected. What he said was that, in the matter of juries, Scotland had followed England, whereas I think the opposite to be indeed the truth. However, the Lord Advocate may perhaps deal with that point, if he sees fit, when he replies.
There is one particular aspect of the matter which I believe is causing some real concern in legal circles in Scotland, and I should like the Lord Advocate at least to consider it before the Committee stage of the Bill. In Clause 22 we are told that the prescribed scales of fees and prescribed conditions will be laid down by reference to Clause 29, and I find that this means that they will be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, with the consent of the Treasury. So far as I understand them, these matters in regard to fees have hitherto been dealt with exclusively by the Court of Session and by Act of Sederunt from that Court. I should have thought that probably it would have been wise to continue that system. I am told, though I do not vouch for it myself, that the Secretary of State himself knows very little indeed about the jury system, whereas the Court of Session knows a great deal about it. In any case, the Court of Session fixes the fees payable to witnesses, experts, assessors and others, and I find in Clause 24 of the Bill that they are to retain the right to fix the fee to be payable to a party applying for a jury trial.
It seems to me that we are going to get two different sets of persons deciding in regard to fees—the Court of Session by Act of Sederunt in regard to the matters concerned in Clause 24, and the Secretary of State in regard to other matters. I said earlier that that is causing some concern in Scottish legal circles, who would much prefer that the whole of that matter was left to the Court and that the Secretary of State should take no part in it. That is the only reference I want to make. I hope the Lord Advocate may see fit to reply to these points. Otherwise, we on this side of the House welcome this Measure, which does indeed remove a certain injustice from jurors in Scotland.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I should like to endorse all that the hon.


and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) has said about the necessity of the Scottish part of this Bill being referred to the Scottish Grand Committee, because the law of Scotland is different and because in the Scottish Grand Committee we have no lawyer on the Opposition side, which would greatly facilitate the progress of the Measure. I am not sure that I endorse the latter plea of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Secretary of State for Scotland should not take part in the administration of this Bill. I deprecate very much the point of view expressed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman that all these matters should be left to the lawyers. I have the greatest distrust of lawyers, and I never listen to a Debate in which legal gentleman throw their weight about with such delight, without thinking that a prima facie case could be made out for hanging the whole lot of them.
My criticism of this Bill is not that it abolishes special juries, but that it does not abolish special judges as well. I have had an unfortunate experience of both, and of a combination of both. I remember being brought to London quite unjustly in 1935, charged with a libel alleged to have been contained in the paper which I edited. I had the unfortunate experience of being tried by a special judge and a special jury, who took up a very special point of view and returned a very special kind of verdict. I do not cast any aspersions upon that judge, because he has now gone to another place. He died shortly after, and went to Heaven, although that is a charitable view to take, and, indeed, a prima facie case could be made out to show that he went somewhere else.
We have heard a great deal from the Opposition Benches about there being no evidence of political bias. In this particular libel case, there was political bias from the beginning to the end, from the first charge against the defendant to the sentence at the finish. This particular judge had been raised to the Bench because he was a well-known and very strong Conservative M.P. The jury was selected, I understand, from people who, in their normal everyday life, were stockbrokers and insurance clerks—people who, through their political training, were hopelessly antagonistic to the Socialist

Party even before the case was heard. I remember this judge reading, not the alleged libel, but starting with a column—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is now going beyond what he ought to say in this House, and is commenting on the actions of the judge, and that can only be done by a proper Motion, not in Debate.

Mr. Hughes: My point was that this judge is dead. I do not know whether that makes any difference.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that makes any difference. It is an attack on the law, whether the judge is living or dead, and I do not think that makes any difference at all.

Mr. Hughes: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I believe in attacks on the law. I will leave the judge, and will go on to deal with the special jury. The special jury heard from this objective and unbiased judge, not only the alleged libel in this particular case; this impartial judge not only read the libel, but nearly all the paper besides, before he came to this particular passage containing the alleged libel. Of course, I felt that the dice were very heavily loaded against me, and, after a most impartial summing-up by this objective judge, with which I rather disagreed, the jury did not even bother to leave the court. They just turned round and faced one another, held a sort of prayer meeting in a corner, and it was "thumbs down." If this case had been heard in Scotland, not before a special jury, but before a jury of 12 honest and unbiased people in Edinburgh, their verdict might have been damages of £25 or £30, but, as a result of the special jury, taking this special point of view, the paper with which I was connected had to pay damages amounting to about £600. That was the verdict, although the plaintiff never got the damages.
I suggest that the time has come when this special jury business ought to be abolished, and this provision is a welcome feature in this Bill. I hope the Attorney-General will also say that we are going to have the Scottish part of this Bill sent to the Scottish Grand Committee, where there are decent, intelligent men and a minimum number of lawyers.

6.58 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Wheatley): I would like to intervene to deal with the peculiarly Scottish issues raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith). With regard to the general principles which are being debated on both sides, I do not intend to deal with them now; they will be dealt with in turn by my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. The general principles regarding the payment of jurors are being followed so far as Scotland is concerned, but the application of those general principles is much simpler in Scotland, because we are a simpler and less archaic race, and we have not got the ramifications of courts that appear in England.
Without going into any controversy or taking sides on the question whether the jury system in England preceded that of Scotland, I think I would be tempted to take sides with the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite and say that, whichever did follow the other, at least if we followed England, we certainly improved on the jury system so far as Scotland is concerned, though I know that that remark will not receive the approval of my right hon. and learned Friends the English Law Officers.
This Bill will affect three sets of courts in Scotland the Criminal Courts, consisting of the High Court of Justiciary and the Sheriff Court in indictable cases, the Court of Session and also the Sheriff Court in civil cases where it is competent to have a jury, although I think it is rarely resorted to, and fatal accidents inquiries. At the present time, jurors are paid in respect of their services only in civil cases, and they are paid at the rate of 10s. per day both in the Court of Session and the Sheriff Court. That sum is paid by the litigants and not, as under the Bill, by the Exchequer. In fatal accident inquiries, jurors are paid at the rate of 5s. per day, and, in criminal cases, they are paid nothing. In our Criminal Courts, the cost of administration in Scotland is borne by the Exchequer, due to the fact that prosecutions in those courts involving jury trials are all public prosecutions and, therefore, the expenditure is borne by the Exchequer.
Following upon that principle, we intend that the payment of jurors in

criminal causes should be borne by the Exchequer. In civil causes, as I have already indicated, the litigants pay the fees paid to the jurors. As hon. Members will appreciate, that is limited at the present time to the 12 jurors empanelled to try the case. There is nothing paid in civil causes to jurors cited to attend the court but not empanelled as jurors.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: Will it be competent in the future to pay jurors from the Legal Aid Fund under the other Bill now going through the House?

The Lord Advocate: No. That Bill deals with something entirely different. The Legal Aid Fund will have nothing whatever to do with payment to jurors. It is merely concerned with financing the litigation from the litigants' angle. Under the Bill, all persons cited to attend, whether empanelled or not, will be entitled to recover expenses and to payment; and so, too, in fatal accident inquiries. As in England, we intend to make the cost of payment of jurors in civil cases a burden on the Exchequer, and we intend to follow the same principle in relation to fatal accident inquiries. We are abolishing special juries in Scotland and special jurors. I do not think that we need have any debate over the justification of the abolition of special juries because, so far as my research has gone, I cannot find a case of any special jury having sat in Scotland in the last 35 years. On the other hand, at the present time, both in civil and criminal causes, our juries are mixed, one-third being special jurors and two-thirds common jurors. That differentiation will now vanish by the passing of this Bill. One more archaic provision abolished by this Part of the Bill is the right of landed persons to be tried by landed persons. That is in conformity with modern development and views. These, I think, are the peculiarly Scottish points. They are very brief, and I do not think that they require any further elaboration.
One or two points were raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok with regard to the fixing of the fees. In criminal courts, the rate of fees payable to witnesses, which may be the basis on which the fees to jurors will proceed, is determined administratively by the Exchequer, who are responsible for the con-


vening of witnesses to court. By the same token, the fees payable to jurors should, in our opinion, also be determined by the Exchequer. On the other hand, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman rightly pointed out, the fees of witnesses in civil causes are determined by Act of Sederunt. There is a fundamental difference in that case.
The person paying the witnesses' fees in a civil cause is the party litigant and therefore it is desirable that the court shall determine the scale of fees payable by the party litigant. On the other hand, the jurors under this Bill will be paid out of Exchequer funds. The court is the right body to protect the position of party litigants before it, but the court is not the proper protector of Exchequer funds. The proper protector is the Minister responsible to Parliament for the administration of justice in Scotland. For that reason, I cannot accept the proposition that the court would be the appropriate body to lay down by regulation a scale of fees for jurors. I think that must be done in view of it involving expenditure of public money by the Minister responsible to this House.

Commander Galbraith: Do I understand correctly that the fees of witnesses and experts are now fixed by the Exchequer and not by the court itself?

The Lord Advocate: In criminal causes, I said that the rate of fees payable to witnesses is determined administratively because no party is entitled to expenses from the other in our criminal courts, apart from stated cases, etc., by way of appeal which do not apply in this case. Therefore these rates of witnesses' fees are not matters at present for Acts of Sederunt but are administrative matters. There is the fundamental difference between criminal and civil causes because the civil cause is in the hands of the court, since it involves the payment of fees by a party litigant.

Commander Galbraith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the fees are fixed administratively. By whom?

The Lord Advocate: By the Exchequer through the Scottish Home Department, the Procurators Fiscal and the Crown Office in criminal causes. Therefore, there is no connection between the

court's power to regulate by Act of Sederunt the scale of witnesses' fees in civil causes and the payment of fees in criminal causes. Whereas that is a complete answer so far as criminal causes are concerned, I trust that the hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciates the reason why we cannot apply the rule of witnesses' fees in civil causes because it is two entirely different persons responsible for the payment of fees for witnesses and the fees for jurors. In these circumstances, I trust that the Bill, so far as it applies to Scotland, is acceptable to Scottish Members, and with regard to the suggestion that the Committee stage of this Part of the Bill should be taken in Scottish Grand Committee, that is a proposal which will receive our most careful consideration.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Would it be possible for an assisted person under the Legal Aid Bill to get the fee payable for a civil jury trial as part of his assistance?

The Lord Advocate: Yes.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: This may be a very modest Bill, as the Attorney-General calls it, but it is equally a very important one. There are one or two matters to which anyone who is associated with the law and with the administration of justice, of which the jury system is an integral and important part, would as regards this Bill wish to refer. I was rather struck, first of all, by the observations of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who was apparently very anxious that the jury system as constituted should be unbiassed; but a greater demonstration of bias than his speech could hardly be witnessed. He condemned all lawyers out of hand, without exception, and he reminded me of the incident where a person was being tried before a court of quarter sessions and took exception to some of the evidence. The chairman of the court said to the accused,
"Don't worry; you will get British justice." The accused replied, "I do not want British justice; I want to get off." It seemed to me, while listening to a good deal of the reminiscences which we have heard today about political and personal cases, that there was a good deal of that element about the views which were expressed.
There has been a large amount of oratory contributed to this Debate, which is not perhaps surprising because, after all, it deals with what has been described as the palladium of our liberty. There are, however, one or two other practical points which, with all respect, do not appear to have received the attention they ought to have while these other more oratorical matters have been having the attention of the House. In the first place, one is naturally pleased to see that at last the right of a juror to be paid is being recognised. The idea that a public obligation should be discharged at the expense of the citizen performing it is quite wrong and unsustainable, and at last it has been recognised that in all jury cases there should be payment to those serving on the jury. But it is very important, once a principle is accepted, to see that it is being reasonably implemented, and I am not at all certain that the provisions of this Bill are going to secure the fair result that I think everyone really does desire to see.
It is suggested that in future all jurors should get one guinea a day, and as far as I can see they are to get that whether they are sworn or not. Previously a juryman was not paid unless he was sworn as a member of a jury which actually tried a case. As I understand it a juror is now to receive payment whether he is sworn or not. What I should like the learned Solicitor-General to tell the House is whether waiting jurors who attend the High Court and particularly quarter sessions or assizes are to be paid for the whole of the time they have to be there. Sometimes they have got to wait about for one or two weeks. In my experience, where a case being tried and it has proceeded an hour or so, waiting jurors are released and told to come back the following afternoon or day. That goes on sometimes for several days. Is it intended that from the first moment that the waiting juror arrives at the court that right of payment as a juror is to operate from that time?
Then, of course, the question has been raised about jurors' expenses. As far as the one guinea is concerned, there is no doubt in many cases that it will hardly cover the loss of earnings, but the question of expenses is rather a serious one. As I understand the Attorney-General the sum that is going to be paid is something

like 5s. a day. But when one comes to consider that it may be essential for a juryman to stay at a hotel overnight where he may incur relatively substantial expenses, 5s. could not possibly cover that amount. I cannot see why, where one has got a public service being performed, there should be these discriminations and differences. If one takes the work done on the local councils or local authorities there is a proper scale of pay and expenses and that is far more just than is contemplated under this Bill. I cannot see why there should be this discrepancy. That is a matter which I should like the Solicitor-General to bear in mind to put right in Committee.
There is that very important matter about the qualification of jurors. It is important because of this. This Bill is going to abolish special juries, and the objection to special juries that has been put forward is that it is based on class. But the common jury qualification in itself creates a class distinction and therefore the same objection against the special jury can be made against the common jury. The qualification for a common juryman is that he should possess at least £10 in real estate or £20 in leaseholds. Indeed in the City of London it is required that he should occupy premises and also have an estate to the value of £100.
The result of that is that it does narrow down the margin from which a jury can be drawn to a very limited circle indeed, and that undoubtedly creates the same objection of class as is being raised in the case of the special jury. I cannot understand therefore why this qualification is left. Another thing that is difficult to understand in this respect is that under the Representation of the People Act, 1948, the qualification is made purely residential and nothing else. What I should like the Solicitor-General to explain is this. If that qualification is good enough for people to make the law, why should it not be good enough for people to administer the law. I ask the Solicitor-General to deal with this question of the qualification, and to say whether or not it is a matter which ought properly to be considered on Committee stage, so that this qualification may be completely abolished.
Then there is the question of where the cost of juries is to fall. In the Bill, the cost in criminal cases is to fall on


the local authority, and in civil cases it is to fall on the Exchequer. I cannot understand why, in a criminal case heard at assizes, the expense should fall on the local authority and not on the Exchequer. There is a contradiction here between this Bill and the Legal Aid Bill because, although the practice up to now has been for that expense in criminal cases to fall on the local authority, it has actually been changed by the Legal Aid Bill, and the liability is now being put on the Exchequer. Why should the costs of legal aid at quarter sessions or assizes in a criminal case fall upon the Exchequer, and the costs for a jury in a similar case at assizes fall on the local authority? The whole thing is contradictory and cannot be reconciled, and I do ask the Solicitor-General to consider here also whether in Committee the Government will not seek to make these two matters coincide.
There has been quite a lot said about what a wonderful institution the special jury is. Those of us who have had experience do not entirely agree. The great objection to a special jury is first of all that its origin is completely doubtful. It was brought in in 1825 in a most obscure and sudden way by the Juries Act, 1825. The Courts decided suddenly to recognise the special jury. Why that should have been is very difficult to say because there has been nothing to justify such an illogical and class distinction. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) on the question of commercial cases. I cannot see why you should have a commercial case in London, where one is entitled to have a City of London special jury, and that commercial cases in the country should on the other hand be deprived of the same sort of tribunal. I am not at all sure I would retain the special jury, even for London cases, but if we are going to do it we should be consistent about it. If that is to be included in the Bill for cases tried in London there is no good reason why it should not be extended to all commercial cases.
There are other important points on which I should have liked to speak on the Bill, but having regard to the stage the Debate has reached I will content myself by leaving the matter there. I hope these

points will be carefully discussed and considered on Committee and that the Bill will be improved in the several respects which I feel are needed. Subject to that the Bill is one which should have the support of the whole House.

7.20 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I believe that all hon. Members will agree that this has been an interesting and useful Debate. We have debated a Bill with a modest and useful object, which is divided into two main provinces, one dealing with the payment of jurors and the other dealing with the abolition of special juries. Some matters of detail arise with which I would like to deal. Other matters will perhaps be more usefully dealt with during the Committee stage. It might be of assistance if I spent a short time in dealing with some of the details.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) asked if waiting jurors would be paid, even though they had not taken their places in the jury box. He will find the answer in Clause 1 (2), where it is specifically and in terms provided that they will. He was concerned also about the allowance of 5s., which he said would be inadequate in the case of a juryman who has to spend the night away from his home. That is again, I think, a point which is covered. We propose to follow fairly closely the provisions relating to the payment of witnesses which were made under the order put into operation in August of last year, under the powers given by the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1908. There were witness allowance regulations made under the terms of that Act which set out certain scales of allowances which were to be paid to witnesses in criminal cases. We propose, in framing the regulations to be made under Clause 1, to follow fairly closely the scales of allowances set out in those witness allowance regulations. My hon. and learned Friend will see, if he looks at those regulations, that there is an allowance of £1 for witnesses who are obliged to spend the night away from their homes for the purpose of giving evidence. We propose to incorporate that in regulations which we will make for the purpose of the Bill.
I should like to digress for a moment and to make an observation which the


Attorney-General desired me to make on his behalf. He fears that he may have unwittingly used language which conveyed a false impression when he was referring to the statutory instruments to be made under Subsection (4) of Clause 1. The language might be construed as implying that that statutory instrument would have to be laid before the House. There is, in point of fact, no such provision in the Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend has asked me, and I now comply with his request, to make it clear, lest there should be any misconception as a result of the language he used.
The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) also was concerned about two aspects of the scales of allowance that were to be adopted for the purpose of payment of jurors. I think I can assure him on both the points that he raised. He was concerned, first, with the allowances that were to be made in the case of jurors who have to travel from some distance in order to get to an assize town where they are to serve as jurors. The hon. and learned Member pointed to the position in which they would find themselves if they could not travel by train. They might have to come by car or find some other method of public conveyance.
As I said a moment ago, we propose to follow the witness allowance regulations, and if the hon. and learned Member will be so good as to look at those regulations, he will see that they contain a provision for train fares, generally speaking third-class. They contain also provision for the expense of travelling by other public conveyance. Furthermore, if there is no available public conveyance, they provide for the expense of hiring a car and, in the last resort, for an actual mileage travelling allowance. I feel that that will reassure the hon. and learned Gentleman on the point about which he felt anxious. He was concerned as to whether there was not some disparity in the maximum levels of allowance in the case of members of local authorities under the Act of 1948, and under the scale which is applicable in the case of jurors. He mentioned an allowance of 14s., which he thought applied—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: So far as I could see, that maximum was applicable to ordinary witnesses and not under the Local Government Act. It may be that

the scale I looked at is out of date. Perhaps it is. I looked at the scale in the last edition of Archbold.

The Solicitor-General: I thought the hon. and learned Member was referring to members of local authorities. If he was referring to witnesses, I can also reassure him by telling him that the Witness Regulations, 1948, provide a maximum of £1. It is these regulations which we propose to adopt as a method to follow.
The hon. and learned Gentleman called attention to some of the wording of the Financial Memorandum and he asked a question about the words which provide that the expenditure of the Treasury would be
reduced to a limited extent by the receipts from the fees which may be prescribed and charged to litigants who apply for a jury.
The situation with regard to this matter is that we used, in framing the Financial Memorandum, the words "to a limited extent," because it is proposed to charge a flat fee to persons who desire to have a jury to try their case. The exact amount of the fee has not yet been decided upon. Two conflicting considerations have to be borne in mind in fixing upon the fee which will finally be exacted. One is that it is obviously undesirable substantially to increase the cost of litigation to litigants. Another consideration is that, inasmuch as it cannot be said a priori exactly what allowances will be payable to individual jurors, because one does not know what they will actually lose by way of earnings and what expenses they will actually incur, one does not know what the proper charge is that could be expected to be paid by the litigant. We have therefore decided that people will have to pay a flat fee, but that will not necessarily be the same as the amount which, when it is subsequently worked out, is found to be payable to the various jurors who have served in the cases in which the litigants were concerned. That is the reason why we used the expression "to a limited extent."
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) raised various points of detail, with one or two of which I will deal shortly. If he will look at Clause 7, he will see that the councils of administrative counties and of boroughs are placed under the obligation of causing their treasurer, or some representative on his behalf, to attend at every court


of assize for the purpose of paying jurors. He was apprehensive that there would be a waste of useful time if it were found to be necessary for an official to be in constant attendance at assize courts for the purpose of the payment of jurors. There will be that obligation as set out in Clause 7. But I would point out that, in any event, as matters stand at the moment, some representative has to attend for the purpose of seeing that witnesses receive their proper allowances under the present witness allowance regulations; so that he has to be there in any case. In point of fact, as, indeed, now does happen in practice, it is not infrequently the position that counsel goes away if it is perfectly apparent that that particular case is to last longer than a day, so that his services cannot, in any event, be called upon. So it is hoped for that reason that there will not be any undue waste of time. Those are matters of detail which I thought it might be of assistance to the House if I dealt with shortly.
With regard to the matters of principle, I am not sure that I can usefully add much to what has been said on both sides of the House. The question of juries is a question on which all hon. Members, quite naturally, feel very strongly—some particularly strongly. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was concerned with what he regarded as, perhaps, unfair treatment which he had received at the hands of a jury, and I am still shuddering at the expression of desire to which he gave vent that all lawyers should be hanged. I am very glad that I am not under the obligation of appearing before him in any judicial capacity. He was amongst others who expressed their own personal reactions to these matters of jury questions, and who gave their own reminiscences from many different angles. I do not propose to contribute much to what has already been said, because I think the question has already been exhaustively examined by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I would simply say this. I would say that three questions of principle actually emerged in the Debate. It was first said by my hon. Friends that it was entirely immoral not to abolish the property qualification so far as juries were concerned. As the Attorney-General said, we can

see the force of that argument, but this is a Bill with a limited object. It is not easy to divorce the question of property qualification from other questions affecting juries—for example, the question of the jury exemptions. However, we have in mind what has been said. As I have already stated, and as he said before me, we do see the compelling force of the arguments that have been advanced upon that score. I shall not add anything further with regard to that particular question.
Only one voice was raised against the general principle that juries should be paid, and that was the voice of the hon. And learned Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe). He, as I understood him, regarded jury service as something which should be done, so far as the jurymen are concerned, entirely gratuitously: it was service to the State for which they should receive no payment.

Mr. Marlowe: I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. I agreed that the expenses should be covered. but drew the line there.

The Solicitor-General: I could not help recalling what Becky Sharp in "Vanity Fair" said, that it would be so easy to pay her bills if she had £5,000 a year. Certainly it is a duty which every citizen has, and should be glad to discharge to the State, but we think that that is no reason why the burden should not fall equally, or why it should bear more heavily upon the person without means than it does upon a person who has ample means; and the principle that juries should receive payment commensurate with the loss of earnings, and the expenses which they incur, I should have thought followed from the principle that they should bear in equal measure an obligation which should not weigh more heavily upon one section of the community than upon another.
Finally, a matter of principle on which the House was divided was the question of the abolition of special juries. I would say just one thing with regard to the City of London special juries. It is not as if we were retaining City of London special juries for the trial of commercial actions and abolishing anything equivalent in the case of, for example, Liverpool


or Manchester. The commercial list of City of London special juries is a London institution. We are not abolishing anything. We are simply retaining it in the case of London, and we are not removing it from any other centre of commerce in this country, in which did not exist in that form at all.

Mr. Hale: Surely my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that the whole tendency of every recommendation of recent law reform and the whole tendency of the consideration of the practice of the courts is towards the advantage of decentralisation, on the basis of increasing the facilities for trials in the provinces, and lessening the necessity of forcing litigants to go to London. That is the reason why, I suggest, that to retain these only in London is reactionary.

The Solicitor-General: I do not accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that that has been the whole emphasis of recent legislation in consideration of law reform. Even if it had been, it is clear that we are not doing anything reactionary. We are retaining something which exists in London and leaving the position in the case of the other commercial centres as it was before.
With regard to the general principle of the abolition of special juries, I would respectfully submit to the House that there can really be only one view which can carry conviction. Let it be accepted—I do not accept it, but let it be accepted for the purpose of argument—that some sort of differentiation should be drawn in the matter of juries, and that we regard some as more fitted for particular classes of cases than others. I do not accept it as a matter of principle. I do not think it carries any conviction. Even if it were so, however, there can be no possible argument for retaining the worst possible measure of differentiation, namely, the purely property qualification. If there were any justification for the property qualification upon the basis that persons who were better off 100 years ago received a better education and, therefore were intellectually more qualified to tackle cases of difficulty, that certainly, I should have thought, was not the case today; and that being so, whatever justification there may have been 100 years ago for that particular type

of property differentiation surely has long since gone, and is a pure anachronism, which there can be no possible justification for retaining.
I would not seek to delay the House further upon that matter. I have endeavoured to resume the argument, which on this side of the House, I believe, my hon. Friends did find compelling, in those few words. We think there can be no possible ground for attempting to differentiate between jurors simply because one juryman lives, or is in a position to live, in a rather bigger house than another. We think that utterly unreasonable, and we regard it as a wholly indefensible anachronism. It is for that general reason which I do not analyse further in detail, because it has been exhaustively discussed in the course of debate, that we think there is an unanswerable case for abolishing special juries except in the limited case of the London special jury, where particular circumstances can be said to obtain. For these general reasons I commend this Bill to the House on Second Reading.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: Before the Solicitor-General sits down, I wonder if he would state the meaning of the words "view of frankpledge" which appear in Clause 14, page 8, of the Bill?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman must not think I cannot do so, but it would mean delving into a particular place in my very lengthy brief. The particular juries which are excluded in Clause 14 of the Bill, if the hon. Member wants to know, have an ancient, historical origin. They have particular functions. They do not serve any practical purpose in the present administration of justice, generally speaking. If he would like later on, I would show him my whole brief, and he could go through these very odd names, one after another and see what their origin and history is. However, I am sure the House would not wish me to launch upon an historical disquisition of matters about which I feel most extremely uncertain.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Collindridge.]

Orders of the Day — JURIES [MONEY]

[Mr. BOWLES in the chair]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84.—(King's Recommendation signified.)

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the making of payments in respect of jury service in Great Britain, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) expenses incurred by way of the making of payments to persons who serve, or attend for service, as jurors, other than payments attributable to—

(i) the transaction of criminal business at a court held by virtue of a commission of assize, a commission of oyer and terminer and a commission of gaol delivery or any of them;
(ii) service, or attendance for service, at the Central Criminal Court, a court of quarter sessions, a court (other than a county court or, in Scotland, a sheriff court) exercising local civil jurisdiction or a coroner's court; or
(iii) service, or attendance for service, for the purposes of an inquiry under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, or the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845; and

(b) any increase attributable to the passing of the said Act of the present Session in the sums which, under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, are payable out of moneys so provided."

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE (SHARE FISHERMEN)

7.41 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Steele): I beg to move,
That the Draft National Insurance (Mariners) Amendment Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was presented on 18th January, be approved.
These regulations deal with one of the most difficult problems that have confronted us in bringing into operation the new comprehensive scheme of National Insurance, namely how to insure all share fishermen. For many years past share fishermen have made requests that they should be insured against unemployment, and in 1935 the problem was referred by the Minister of Labour to the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee. That committee, however, were unable to make a favourable recommendation. The difficulty persisted, and

in view of the complexities of the question and to meet a promise made in the House by my right hon. Friend, he referred it to the National Insurance Advisory Committee as soon as the committee was established in November, 1947. The committee examined all sides of the problem, and consulted with the fishermen's representatives as well as certain hon. Members specially interested in the problem. They published their report on 28th April, 1948, with favourable recommendations, and I would remind the House that the National Insurance (Share Fishermen) Provisional Regulations were made on 25th June.
Broadly speaking, the effect of those regulations was to bring persons wholly or mainly engaged as share fishermen into Class I for insurance, even though they might not be employed under a contract of service. These regulations, however, only gave effect to a part of the committee's recommendations which were contained in their report. The committee had themselves recognised that further study by the Ministries concerned was necessary before regulations to give effect to their suggestions could be prepared. The results of this further study were embodied in a preliminary draft of the regulations now before the House, on which the committee reported on 20th December recommending certain amendments. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing our appreciation of the very thorough manner in which the Advisory Committee investigated this difficult problem, and the care which they have shown in making their recommendations.
Regulation 1 is, of course, merely introductory. Regulation 2 amends Regulation 1 of the National Insurance (Mariners) Regulations so as to include share fishermen whether or not employed under a contract of service within the definition of "mariners." It should be noted that the definition of a share fisherman excludes a man who works his boat singly.
Regulation 3 amends Regulation 2 of the National Insurance (Mariners) Regulations which treats employment as a mariner as employed contributor's employment. The effect of this amendment is, broadly, that a share fisherman is insured as an employed person if he is employed under a contract of service or has been wholly or mainly engaged as a


share fisherman or in share fishing and other Class I employment. In bringing share fishermen into insurance as employed persons my right hon. Friend has followed the recommendations of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which were made in the light of evidence that the great majority of share fishermen wished to be so insured.
I want to take this opportunity to explain this to the House, because representations have been received from a small minority that some share fishermen, and especially I think some of the skippers, would prefer to be insured as self-employed persons. This is because they think they would not be likely to satisfy the conditions for receipt of unemployment benefit, and also because the total contribution of 9s. Id. is too high. The former objection is based on a misunderstanding, because, as I shall explain in dealing with the next regulation, all share fishermen, including skippers, will be able to qualify for unemployment benefit. Moreover—and this point also answers the second objection—if share fishermen were to be treated as self-employed persons they would normally have to pay a contribution of 6s. 2d. whether they fished or not but as employed persons they would not only be entitled to unemployment benefit when they proved unemployment, but would also be entitled to credits of contributions.
Regulation 4 introduces two new regulations, 14A and 14B, into the National Insurance (Mariners) Regulations. The first deals with the payment and collection of contributions payable in respect of share fishermen who are not under a contract of service. It provides that the owner or, where there is more than one owner, the managing owner, shall be treated as an employer for the purposes of the Act. It further provides that in these cases the employer's part of the contribution may be deducted from the gross earnings of the vessel before the profits are shared. The regulation also allows the employee's share to be paid out of the gross earnings as an alternative to being recovered from that employee's share of the profits, because of the widely differing methods of remuneration in the industry, which are well tried and which we do not wish to disturb.
Paragraph (1) of Regulation 14B provides, first, that a share fisherman shall

not receive unemployment benefit on any day unless on that day he has performed no work as a share fisherman as defined in paragraph (3). In most industries, when machines require repair or maintenance the men are paid to do the work, and there is really no difference between this work and similar work in the fishing industry. It is merely a result of the peculiar methods of remuneration in share fishing that the men receive no payment directly related to the time so spent. If the work is not done fishing will be delayed and the earnings which they share will be reduced. This work must, therefore, be considered as an essential part of the fisherman's job, for which he is paid—though not at the time—by his share of the profits, and he cannot be regarded as unemployed while so engaged.
On the other hand, a fisherman may occupy time when he is forced to remain on shore in doing work on his vessel or gear which must be done sooner or later, but which is not immediately necessary or likely to be necessary in the near future. For example, he may spend time in painting the vessel or in mending spare nets. The House will appreciate the difficulty in defining the dividing line between essential and non-essential work in such a way as to do justice to the many different types of share fishermen on the one hand and the general body of employed persons on the other. We have tried to state clearly the kind of work which is essential, and in general terms which will enable the independent statutory authorities to take account of local practice in interpreting the definition. Paragraph (1) provides, secondly, that before a share fisherman can receive unemployment benefit he must prove that he has not neglected to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity of working as a fisherman.
Paragraph (2) imposes rather stricter conditions where the boat is owned or part owned by the master or member of the crew. In these circumstances it is very difficult to tell whether or not the unemployment of owner-workers is involuntary or not. We agreed with the Advisory Committee that it is desirable that all share fishermen should be insured in the same way for the same benefits and undesirable that any distinction should be drawn between those members of the crew who part-own a vessel or


its nets and gear and those who do not. These additional conditions therefore apply to all the crew in any vessel which is owned or part-owned by the master or any member of the crew.
The regulations provide that the claimant to unemployment benefit must prove that there was no work in or in connection with the vessel available to him for the day in question for any one of the reasons specified in the regulations or that for any other reason the boat could not reasonably be expected to operate. This last is a wide provision which would cover such things as the prohibition of fishing by the Herring Industry Board. What constitutes a good reason is a question which the independent statutory authorities established under the National Insurance Act will have to determine, and here again they will have some scope to take account of differences between local types of fishing.
These regulations apply the provisions of the National Insurance Act to a body of men who by virtue of the circumstances in their industry are in a peculiar position but whose work is of great importance to the community and who should not be subject to any avoidable penalty in their position in the National Insurance scheme by reason of these circumstances. It may be argued that because of these special circumstances there are administrative difficulties in applying the special conditions for benefit, but we should not shrink from these difficulties in doing what we think is right. Moreover, I share to the full the confidence of the committee that the share fishermen will co-operate fully with the Department because these rules are fair and reasonable and therefore can be administered without too much difficulty.
I can, however, assure the House that we shall watch the administration of the regulations with particular care. Administratively we face the consequences of tackling an old insurance problem on new lines, and I am sure they are the right lines, and we are willing to learn from the experiences which attend all beginnings. I am certain, too, that the House needs no assurance about the fishermen themselves. I am quite sure that the share fishermen do not want a privileged position any more than they want penalties. Like any other group of insured persons, they want a fair deal from the

scheme, and with this aim foremost in our minds, I ask the House to approve the regulations.

7.53 p.m.

Sir Basil Neven-Spence: As one of the hon. Members to whom the Parliamentary Secretary referred as having a special interest in the problem, I welcome the promulgation of these regulations. A great deal of confusion of thought reigns at present. The inshore fishermen are largely stranded and do not know where they are and the employment exchange officials are very largely at sea. The publication of these regulations will no doubt put them both back in their proper elements.
Fishermen have always been difficult customers to deal with over these social insurance questions. Every time a form of insurance has arisen, a strong body has objected to being included. That occurred in the case of the original widows and old age pensions scheme and in the case of Health Insurance, and it was only to be expected that a body of objectors would be found to Unemployment Insurance. Some flatly object—though there are not many—simply because they consider themselves to be owners who should therefore be treated as self-employed persons. Others have based their objection more on what they conceive to be the absolutely insoluble difficulty of saying whether or not a share fisherman was employed. These regulations are a most admirable attempt to clear up the whole problem.
I want to ask one or two questions, first concerning the distribution of the cost of contributions. I hope that the regulations will be sufficiently flexible to take account of the varied systems of keeping boats' accounts which prevail on different parts of the coast. The regulations provide that the contribution paid by an employer may be deducted from the gross earnings of the vessel. Would it be permissible for the employer's contribution to be charged against the employer's share of the profits instead of against the gross earnings? The employee's contribution would normally be collected from his remuneration, that is, from the fishermen's share. Would it be permissible again for the employee's share to be deducted from the gross earnings of the vessel? I put these points


merely because it is undesirable to disturb practices which have existed for a very long time.
As to conditions governing unemployment, these regulations are a very great improvement on the preliminary draft published earlier. This matter was dealt with in Section 14B (1) and (3) of the preliminary draft, the broad effect of which was that fishermen were not treated as unemployed if they were working for a substantial part of the day on repairs or maintenance. The words used there would undoubtedly have tended to encourage idleness, and would also have paved the way for the performance of too great an amount of essential work. The present regulations are a very great improvement in that respect.
I want to say a word about the conditions under which these men can draw unemployment benefit. The preliminary draft provided that unemployment benefit could be drawn if, on account of the state of the weather, a fishing vessel could not put to sea. In the regulations the words "with a view to fishing" have very wisely been added. Obviously there are many occasions when fishing boats could put to sea with absolute safety but under conditions in which fishing would have been completely impossible. The condition that unemployment benefit may be drawn when there is a complete absence of fish in the sea is reasonable, for the men have no control over that.
A much more widely drafted and difficult condition is that relating to causes necessitating an abstention from fishing. There have been occasions upon which fishermen have declined to go to sea because they did not like the price offered for their fish. That happened two years ago in the herring industry. The men did not like the price of 35s. a cran. Their real objection was not the price. Understandably they felt it was wrong that this excellent food should be used for making fish oil or meal. It is unreasonable that the men should draw unemployment benefit simply because they decide that they do not approve of the price being offered for the fish. If the fish are there and there is a market for them, they ought to go to sea, and they are therefore not unemployed. However, other things may happen. From time to time the Herring Industry Board may close a port. The fishermen have

no control over that. It sometimes happens that the fish buyers close the market. That again is something over which the men have no control. Also there have been on occasions transport strikes and dock strikes, when it was useless to fish, because it could not be got to the markets.
Then comes subparagraph (2) (b) which deals with vessels undergoing repairs and maintenance. This can be divided into work of an essential kind and work of a less essential kind. Obviously any work which should be done before the vessel puts to sea is essential as well as any which has to be done in the near future if the vessel is to remain safe and efficient for its job. Finally, there is the work of laying up the boat and laying aside the gear at the end of the season. All these have been regarded as an essential part of the fisherman's job, and for which his remuneration came out of the proceeds of his fishing, and it is right that employment on these jobs should not rank for the payment of unemployment benefit. On the other hand, there are less essential jobs in which the men engage when prevented from fishing by weather, not essential jobs but ones which it is better should be done. These tail off into minor repairs to the boat, and things which fishermen like to do and ought to be encouraged to do, such as keeping their boats spick and span. The difficulty comes in deciding where the line is to be drawn.
Paragraph (3) (a) and (b) is an admirable attempt to define the class of work which, if done, shall not entitle a man to draw unemployment benefit. For the rest I think it has to be left to the Commissioner to make decisions and, in time, a body of case law will be built up which will be a good guide. There is a danger, though not a big one, that some fishermen may attempt to make a wrong use of these regulations. I hope they will not because, unless they co-operate in the working of these regulations, they may find that fresh ones will have to be drawn up which might prove to be less favourable to them than these.
Finally, I endorse what the Parliamentary Secretary said. I think that Sir Will Spens and those who worked with him, have done an admirable job in dealing with a thorny problem, and I am sure


that the entire inshore fishing industry will be grateful to them and to the Minister, as we are.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Hubbard: Share fishermen all over the country will welcome the enterprise of the Government in at last finding a scheme to bring these fishermen inside the class of employed persons. The life and livelihood of share fishermen have been precarious for many years. It has often been described as "a hunger and a burst," but generally there has been much more hunger than there have been bursts. We are happy, therefore, that a solution has been found at last. There has always been fear in the minds of these fishermen who could not look forward to any security in the future. No one wants the form of security given by the regulations but it is a comfort to all those involved to know that it is there, and so they welcome the regulations. They already feel fairly comfortable inasmuch as the guaranteed prices now made available have given them some security when they are working and land a catch. Now these regulations give them some security when they have been unable to land their catch or to go to sea, and they will be a great comfort. I wish to congratulate the Department on being able, with the help of the Advisory Committee, at last to produce a scheme which will bring those people within the scope of unemployed persons when necessary.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Beechman: These regulations, which at first sight may appear somewhat modest, in fact make history, and not only in the fishing industry. They certainly make history in that industry because for at least 11 years the share fishermen have desired what is substantially in these regulations. So here we have something that has been wanted for many years. I know it has not been wanted by quite all the share fishermen, but I know also that the majority have desired it. Therefore, I share in the tribute already paid to the Advisory Committee, whom I have had the opportunity of seeing once or twice, for the enormous care they took, and to the Department for getting over what was a difficult matter.
I think it ought to be stated how this makes history in a wider sense. The difficulty until now has been that a share fisherman has been regarded as a self-employed person and has, therefore, not been entitled to benefit. The next stage was that it was considered by many that he should not have benefits unless he was in the ordinary sense an employee. It is to the great credit of all concerned—and it pleases me very much because it marches with my thought—that these regulations recognise a traditional form of co-operation. These fishermen co-operate with each other in a special enterprise. If an engineman, or some other skilled man, is taken away from a boat, the little boat cannot put to sea. It is a traditional, practical form of co-operation. Nobody knows for how many years it has existed. It is a form of co-operation in which we may take great pleasure for it is a voluntary method whereby fishermen, very often of the same family, work together, and it is not something which is enforced from the top. This form of co-operation has been recognized as of importance in the make-up of the scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Neven-Spence) has mentioned a matter to which I should like to refer. Paragraph (3, b) relates to a very great improvement in a problem of very great complexity, that is, whether benefit should be allowed whilst repairs are being made to a boat. The meaning, I am sorry to say, is still not clear, and it is very important that it should be clarified. Fishermen want to know whether, if they paint their boats and make crab pots, for instance, whilst their boat is laid up because of stress of weather or overhaul, they will still receive benefit. The wording of the paragraph states that repairs may be done:
… at the end of a fishing season or their preparation for a season's fishing.
None the less, these repairs may in fact be carried out, and rightly so, when weather renders fishing impossible or when there are no fish about. It is not merely a question of repairing boats. There is, for instance, the necessity of making crab pots. A man may be much better engaged in that way than sitting about in the sun and being unemployed. I should like to know that such fishermen will not be prevented from drawing benefit. The same argument applies equally


to the question of overhauls of all descriptions.
I am sorry if a boat which is operated by only one or possibly two men, which may not, of course, really be a share fishing boat, is excluded from the regulations. I can understand why, and I know that many of the people who take out these little boats, especially in Scotland, have other forms of work which they can undertake. But some people with little boats of their own are genuine fishermen who live by the sea. I am very sorry that single fishermen are relegated to that class which has to pay 6s. 2d. because for them 6s. 2d. is a very great sum. Apart from such criticisms, however, I think that these are an admirable set of Regulations.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: This is indeed a good ending to what is quite a long story, even in the life of the present Parliament. The Minister is well aware of the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends and I in February, 1946, upon this subject. We felt at the time, I think rightly so, that he had great sympathy towards those arguments, but, as is the usual method of Parliamentary procedure, the Minister had to be pressed on many occasions after that Debate, to take action, and certain complications arose about how our proposals should be put into effect.
I should like to pay my tribute also to those who served on the Spens Committee, for their understanding and the kindliness with which they approached the subject when we went before them as witnesses, and also to the permanent officials attached to the Ministry, who at all times, even prior to the setting up of the Committee, did their level best to see how our proposals could be brought about.
The great problem about the principle of giving unemployment benefit to inshore share fishermen was the fact, as the Minister well knows, that certain ports managed to get over the difficulties and some ports did not. In consequence, quite a ridiculous position was developing. Owing to the wonderful qualities in the spiritual and mental make-up of our share fishermen, they never brought fully to light the fact that although somebody else was prospering, they themselves were not.
What I consider to be the gravest and most vital question under the regulations is not only to what extent they will help the share fishermen but how they will assist the intake of men into the Industry. There is a great anxiety about the entry of people into the fishing industry and I know that the Minister realises to the full the seriousness of this question. It is true that following our Debate tonight, a certain degree of publicity will result, and that the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary will add to that publicity, but this is not enough. I should like the Minister to persuade the Service Departments to issue publications — the Admiralty by A.F.O. and the other services by the appropriate method—to inform men who are passing through the Services of the conditions contained in these regulations so that they may be attracted to this vital and important industry.
My words are endorsed, I believe, by the draft of these regulations wherein it was suggested that the small number of share fishermen who were opposed to the regulations were opposed only because they were not fully aware of their meaning. Words were used to the effect that they were not fully aware that they would qualify for unemployment benefit in such a case. But it is made clear in the draft report where the words are used:
If a fisherman is unemployed for part of a week unemployment benefit may be payable
That is an important point to make.
I share with the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) regret that there was no method of dealing with the case of the genuine single fisherman. I ask the Minister to state categorically that what I read in the order is that it is only in the case of the single man and where it is a question of two men they are absolutely and completely covered.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): indicated assent.

Mr. Marshall: I am very glad to see the Minister nod his head and agree on that point. It was fully realised and mentioned in the report that when a fisherman is unemployed his boat is literally part of himself. The report says:
The fisherman's boat, however, is often his pastime as well as his means of livelihood. If he is unemployed and there is no work for him to do, he may wish to occupy his time


improving the appearance of his boat or doing other jobs which need not be done for the boat to be ready to go to sea with safety and efficiency either at once or in the near future.
Fully realising that, they came to the recommendation which I think is all important that
any amount of work on the boats or gear which does not fall within this definition"—
and the definition refers to a full performance of work which is necessary—
will be disregarded.
That is a very important recommendation covering some points which have not been made completely clear.
One of the most important things about this draft order is the spirit in which it will be carried out. There are bound to be difficulties. The Minister has stated that he hopes that share fishermen will co-operate in this matter. I am certain that the fishermen I know in Cornwall will co-operate. They will do everything they can and will be grateful for this order. I am absolutely convinced about that. I trust that the Minister in his reply will give clear words of direction to his representatives that the one thing he wishes is that they should implement this order in the spirit in which he wishes to see it implemented, and that share fishermen should receive unemployment benefit when unemployed.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: This seems to be a very happy and harmonious occasion and I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary, who introduced the regulations, on having presented them in such a satisfactory way. We have heard nothing but commendation of the regulations from all sides of the House and we have had two speeches from hon. Members from either extremity of Great Britain, both sitting on this side of the House, which have convinced me that these regulations are thoroughly satisfactory. There was so much commendation from those representing share fishermen that I began to wonder if there was anything in the regulations which would prompt me in the general interest to query their desirability, but I know that the Minister watches these things from the point of view of general interest and is supported by an able staff in his Department. I am sure the House will give its free assent to the regulations. I

should be glad if the Minister would say a word or two about the question of determining authorities, because it appears to me, as one who does not fully understand these matters, that they are given considerable latitude, and I fully see the need for that.

8.26 p.m.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): May I say how grateful I am to hon. Members who have paid tribute to the Advisory Committee. On occasion I have had to put very difficult questions to Sir Will Spens and his committee and I think this was the most difficult of all. Indeed, it was so difficult that no Government up to now proposed to do what we shall do tonight, that is, to deem these very important and fine people to be persons under the Act under contract of service, although no contract, in fact, exists. I also wish to pay tribute to the Advisory Committee for the way in which they examined every phase of the problem and for the great thought they have given to devising words to cover the problems we have to meet and being fair to share fishermen whilst also having in mind the general body of insured persons.
About 26 million people are insured under the scheme and in our Department we have had a very difficult task to sort them out into three classes of insured person—employed, self-employed, and not gainfully employed. When the National Insurance Bill was framed we considered it desirable to leave the matter in such a way that where we thought we ought to deem someone to be under contract of service although he was not under contract of service we should have power to do that by regulation. This is another instance of how valuable legislation by regulation may be. I am looking at some of the critics of that policy now. If we had tried to argue it out and find words in the House of Commons although we have a very fine pool of experience we might have made a mess of it. I hope it will go on record that this legislation by delegation is sometimes a happy way of doing things and a very great advantage.

Mr. D. Marshall: Subject to an affirmative Resolution.

Mr. Griffiths: The major difficulty has been the question of unemployment benefit. These share fishermen are


people who are their own employers and, being their own employers, they can decide whether they work or not. The mass of people covered for unemployment benefit, when they receive benefit, do so because there is no work available for them. And there is a test and we can check up. In this case the problem was how we could maintain good administration, which is essential to a scheme of this kind, by making quite sure that when a person put in a claim for benefit that claim could be checked. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) said that this matter had been discussed for 11 years and I expect it was taken up before then. Successive Governments have been appealed to and we have had to find a way out.
In addition to the Advisory Committee, I wish to pay a tribute to the officials of my Department who have worked very hard. When I became the Minister and came into touch with these people I told my officials, "The share fishermen are a fine body of men and a distinctive element worth helping and preserving. We must, therefore, set out to find a way of bringing them in, and find a way of overcoming the difficulties." Every one concerned, the Advisory Committee and the Department, have worked with that end in view.
The first question raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Neven-Spence) was about the distribution of the contributions between those whom we deem to be the employers and those whom we deem to be the employees, though in fact they will all be drawn in alike. The regulations are permissive in these matters. So long as we get the contribution, the way in which it is raised and the distribution is a matter which under the regulations can be left to the discretion of those involved in the various places. The hon. Member will accordingly know what to advise his constituents when that problem is put before him.
Another question raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) and by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) was that of the single fisherman. No way has been found or can be found to cover his case. I am

sorry that he has to be excluded, but what else can we do? The only person excluded is the single fisherman. It is made abundantly clear in Regulation 2 that we define a share fisherman for the purpose of these regulations as a master or member of the crew of any ship or vessel
being a fishing vessel manned by more than one person ….
It is clear that where there are two they are included. As I say, the only person excluded is the single fisherman.
I now turn to the provision 14B contained in Regulation 4. These are the special conditions that are attached, and they are difficult. We have tried in these regulations to state clearly the kind of work which is essential and at the same time to do so in general terms which will enable the independent local tribunals to take account of local differences in applying these regulations. Various hon. Members have share fishermen among their constituents who are often of an entirely different character and have different traditions and customs from other share fishermen. That is our difficulty. There are share fishermen in Scotland, in Devon, in Cornwall, in the Orkneys and Shetlands, and there are all kinds of varying circumstances. The Advisory Committee came to the conclusion that the right thing to do was to state the conditions in general terms, leaving the application of these principles in the particular circumstances of each group to the local statutory authorites.
If we had tried any other method we should have found ourselves returning to difficulties which might have been found insurmountable. I agree that the important people in administering these schemes are the local statutory authorities. The first I shall mention is the local tribunal. This is composed of a chairman, a lawyer of experience, and sitting with him, as equal members of the tribunal, two other members, one drawn from a panel of employers' representatives and the other drawn from a panel of workers' representatives. These tribunals will decide these cases in the various places. So the chairman and the other two members, all of them drawn from the area, will be men with intimate experience of the customs and conditions of the fishermen with whom these regulations are concerned.
Before the case goes to a tribunal our local insurance officer will have to make a decision. These local insurance officers will in many cases have had experience of handling these problems in the Ministry of Labour. They will administer the regulations fairly and sympathetically, with a desire to see that they are made a success. They will know from the start that it is the desire of the Minister, of the Government and of every one in the House that a success should be made of the regulations. If the local officer makes a decision and the fisherman feels aggrieved he can appeal to the local tribunal. There is a further appeal to the commissioner.
Normally the two important authorities concerned are, first, the local insurance officer, who will be an officer of the Department, with independent rights to decide a case in the light of these regulations; and secondly, the tribunal. I think we had better leave the matter to them. This is an experiment. As has been said, we are making history. We think it better, therefore, to leave the matter in this flexible way so that these general principles can be adapted to the circumstances in each case. I hope that the hon. Member will not press me on more detailed questions, because I cannot give an answer; once we adopt these regulations the determination of claims under them is a matter for the local insurance officer, the tribunal and finally, the Commissioner.
It is best to leave the matter there. We can see by experience how the Regulations work out. If we find that here and there they should be changed we can change them, having learned by experience. I consider that to launch this scheme these regulations are the best which we can devise and the best of which the Advisory Committee could think, having given most careful thought to this matter. I appreciate what the hon. Member for Bodmin said about the need for full publicity being given, first to the fact that we have found a solution to this problem; and secondly, that the regulations and their content should be as widely known as possible. As Minister of the Department concerned I shall do what I can to make them as widely known as possible, and I shall also take up the matter with the heads of the Service

Departments. I am sure that they too will be glad to co-operate in this respect.
With the co-operation of the fishermen and our local officers, and the good judgment of the tribunals and commissioners, I am sure we shall be able to make a success of this development. It is our desire to make the regulations a success. We are anxious to bring this fine body of people within the full cover of the Insurance Act.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Draft National Insurance (Mariners) Amendment Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was presented on 18th January, be approved.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Nantwich, a copy of which Order was presented on 28th January, be approved.

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Tenterden, a copy of which Order was presented on 28th January, be approved."—[Mr. Younger.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

Orders of the Day — POLISH RESETTLEMENT CORPS

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: I wish to give my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War the opportunity to make a statement on the intentions of the Government with regard to the Polish Resettlement Corps, and at the same time to afford him an opportunity to clear up some of the doubts which have been so obviously manifested in the House at Question Time during the last six months with regard to the functions of this organisation. So far as I understand its purpose, the intention was that the Resettlement Corps should be a filter whereby the Pole was returned from his military unit into civilian life.
One of the remarkable features of the administration of the Act has been the number of Ministers who have been concerned with it. When searching through the columns of HANSARD one finds that the Departments concerned with the Polish Resettlement Corps are very many. The Minister of Defence is concerned; so are the Minister of Labour, the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Air. In addition, there are the Minister of National Insurance, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health. It would appear as a consequence that what has been everybody's business would at times seem to have been nobody's business at all. There have been cases where an individual has been de-militarised from the Polish forces, but, in fact, it would appear that instead of passing from the Corps he is just passed from the care of one Minister into the care of another. That, I think, is an added reason for suggesting that if it is at all possible the control of this organisation should be concentrated in the care of a smaller number of Departments than presently exists.
We have been assured by each of the Ministers I have mentioned, either personally or through their junior colleagues, that it was the intention of the Government that the Polish Resettlement Corps should be wound up by the end of 1948. One of my right hon. Friends who is on the Front Bench just now, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, gave quite a definite guarantee to the House, in a reply to a Question, that this organisation would cease to exist by December, 1948. If necessary I can quote the exact answer and the date. If my right hon. Friend disputes that he will find that the records show just exactly what I have said. But, of course, I am not seeking to pin down any of my colleagues on the Front Bench on this particular point. I am merely trying to point out that the House was convinced that the intention of the Government was to wind up this organisation by the end of 1948, and we accepted that. Then a remarkable thing happened. On Tuesday last, in answer to a Question, the Secretary of State for War stated that his intention, and I assume the intention of the Government, was to wind up this organisation early in 1950. In view of that reply I think we are entitled to ask

the reason for this obvious change of decision on the part of the Government.
It is remarkable to note that in September, 1946, the number of persons in the Polish Resettlement Corps was of the order of 100,000; and at this moment the number is 13,180. So that in the space of two years we have returned to civilian life 88,000 of these people. Now, instead of that rate of de-militarisation going on in the next 15 or 18 months, or whatever it may be, we are going to dispose only of this 13,180. That would seem such a remarkable slowing down in the process of filtering these people back into civilian life as to cause me rightly to ask my hon. Friend if he will state the reason for that very decided slow-down.
There is another point which is of consequence, and that is the cost of this organisation. Up to date, it has cost us over £27 million, and that is a large sum of money. I am not going to deal so much with the past. That money has gone. But at this moment, of the 13,000-odd who are still in the Corps, 5,892 of them are officers. They are being paid at rates far in excess of what is paid to officers in the British Army at the present moment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): No.

Mr. Rankin: Well, my hon. Friend, in his reply, will keep me correct. I understand that a general in the British Army is paid something like £3 a day, but a general in the Polish Resettlement Corps is paid £5 10s. per day.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will the hon. Member elaborate that statement and say whether the sum he has stated is the full pay of a Lieut.-General or whether it is half-pay, and if it is full pay, how many of them receive it?

Mr. Rankin: Both of these sums to which I have referred, I understand from HANSARD, are the sums paid to a general who is established, not an un-established general, where the rate for the Polish general would be 47s. instead of £5 10s. I calculate that the cost for these. 5,892 officers is £2,132,330. In addition to that—which is a big sum to be paid when we realise that in our own Forces the corresponding ranks are not paid nearly


so much—they are given allowances for clothing and for messing, and I believe that in certain cases the pay rates are completely free of tax. It is obvious that, if people are drawing these salaries in the Polish Resettlement Corps, they have very little incentive or desire to find themselves redundant in their present jobs, or to help in the winding up of that organisation and the return of themselves to civilian life.
I understand that it has been suggested that we cannot easily get rid of this large block of officers because, at the present moment, it would seem that every Polish soldier has a personal officer, and, if we are going to allow that sort of thing in the Polish forces, we might create in the British Army a similar position whereby every soldier had a claim to his own personal attendant in the shape of an officer looking after him, which would create a very serious set of circumstances. We are told we cannot get rid of these people because some are too old and some are too infirm, but that is an added reason why they ought not to be in a military establishment at all and ought to be returned to civilian life.
There is a further point which I want to put to my hon. Friend. I know it may be difficult for him to reply to all the points raised, but that very fact emphasises the point which I made at the beginning that far too many Ministers have become responsible for the administration of this Corps. I should like to ask him why a special scheme was created for the Royal Air Force, apart from the ordinary resettlement scheme. Are there still in this country any armed units of the Polish Forces, apart from the Polish Resettlement Corps? How many women have been put into uniform in the Polish Forces since the end of the war, and how has the number of their dependants increased during the last three years? Further, what property and transport do they possess? There is also a good deal of disquiet with regard to the disposal of the welfare funds which were in the possession of the Polish Army when the war came to an end.
In conclusion, I want to suggest two points. No one in this House will say that any Pole should be returned to Poland if he does not want to go. I do not think there is any argument about

that. I was a member of the first Parliamentary Delegation that went from this House to Poland, and, after I returned, I said wherever I went and on all possible occasions that every Pole who had the welfare of his nation at heart should return to Poland because Poland needed him. We had all sorts of stories at that time about what was happening to these people, but they were untrue. I asked our Consul-General at Gdynia if he could give me an example of any one Pole returning from this country to Poland and not being well treated, and he said that not one example had ever been put before him. He said that they were all well treated and were welcome.
Nevertheless, I say that any Pole who does not desire to go to Poland should not be compelled in any way, either directly or indirectly. But I would also say that, if a Pole wants to continue military life, let him continue that military life in the service of the British military forces and under the general conditions within our own military forces. If he does not want to do that, if he is unable to find work, then he ought to pass into the care of the appropriate welfare department in this country. There is one thing upon which we ought to insist, and I hope it will be insisted upon tonight. It is that we ought not to allow to be created in this country a separate community, with separate organisations. living in our own country and living on military rates of pay.

8.56 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Having listened carefully to the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin), I am somewhat at a loss to know what his objective is. Does he mean that he desires to do away with the Polish Resettlement Corps?

Mr. Rankin: I said so clearly, and I apologise to the House for repeating it.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: That has not helped me very much. I am still at a loss to know what the hon. Member desires, although I was very glad to hear him say that no Pole should be forced to return to his own country against his wishes. I ask the hon. Member whether he realises that the Polish Resettlement Corps was brought into being by the Foreign Secretary in 1946 with the object


of enabling members of that Corps to be absorbed into civilian employment in this country or to emigrate overseas. It is not, in the strict sense of the word, a military organisation at all, though the Polish Government have tried to make out that it is.
I am certain that the mass of the people of this country are only too glad to do everything they possibly can to help these unfortunate Poles, who are only in this country for the reason that, after the war was won, Poland did not obtain its independence, but came under the control of Communist Russia, and is more so today than at the beginning. It is quite impossible for many Poles in this country to return. If they did, it would be very much the worse for them. I ask the hon. Member opposite for example what would happen to General Anders if he returned to his native country? Can the hon. Member tell me?

Mr. Rankin: It is not for me to say.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: There is not much doubt about what would be the fate of General Anders and an enormous number of others, who have been most unjustly branded as traitors to their country by the Polish Government. They are here because they will not return to their country, where there is no freedom whatever, because that country is dominated by Communist Russia and that domination is getting worse all the time.

Mr. Rankin: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say why they ought not to return to civilian life in this country?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: They ought not to return to their own country because they believe in freedom and independence, and there is neither freedom nor independence there.

Mr. Rankin: I am sorry, but I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman took up the point which I put to him. My point is, why should not these people return to civilian life in this country?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: That is exactly what they want to do. I would remind the hon. Member of the fact that it was not until May, 1947, that the conference between the Government and the trade union officials came to the decision whereby the trade unions would allow the Poles to work in this country, which is

what they wanted to do. The trade unions have been greatly to blame in this connection and have prevented the Poles from working. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour whether that is so or not.

Mr. Ness Edwards: We have had a very great degree of co-operation from the trade unions in getting these Poles into civilian employment and the fact that we have 88,000 now in employment is an indication of that.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: It has taken a considerable time to get that co-operation. The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny that for some time the unions would not have these Poles working with their members—for instance, in the mines.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am sure that we all want to do the best we can to help these Poles back to civilian life, and I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman in his condemnation of some people in some parts of the country not to forget that, so far as the headquarters and leaders of the trade unions are concerned, we have had the most complete co-operation.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I am very glad to hear that things are now much better. I know that they are. I very much deprecate the attacks which are made on the Poles in this country, because I think that they are in very bad taste, for one thing, and, far worse, that it is inhuman to attack people who desire to go back to their own country but who for very good reasons cannot do so—people to whom we are enormously indebted for what they did during the war. I am certain that the people of this country will still willingly foot the bill for maintaining such Poles as it is necessary for us to maintain.
The Poles themselves desire to get work. I have the figures here of the number who are in employment, the number who are self-supporting, the number supported by their relatives, and the number supported by the State. There is a total of 140,200, of whom 96,000 are self-supporting, 68.5 per cent.; 16,400 maintained by heads of families, 11.7 per cent.; 27,800 maintained by public funds, 19.8 per cent. I would remind the House that those who are maintained from public funds include the following categories: those in the Polish Resettlement Corps and the Polish Resettlement Corps


of the R.A.F., people under the care of the Assistance Board, students in receipt of scholarships from the British Committee for the Education of the Poles, and the persons on the Polish Resettlement Care and Assistance Board establishment—some 9,000, who can really be taken as self-supporting.
I would remind the House that in Great Britain 40 per cent. of the population are actively employed, whereas of the Poles 68 per cent. are actively employed. It is quite untrue, quite wrong and most unjust to say—and the suggestion has been made more than once in this House—that the Poles will not work and do not desire to get work, and that we ought to do something about it. That is quite wrong, and I very much object to it because it is unjust. The Poles are most anxious to work. Those remaining at present in the Polish Resettlement Corps are some 15,500, I believe; there are in this number 7,000 officers, some 3,500 of whom are over 50, and 3,500 are war disabled. It will be seen that the number includes those whom it is now becoming more and more difficult to employ—for instance, the officers over 50. Our own people who have come back from the war and who are over 50 find it extremely difficult to get a job. How much more difficult, therefore, must it be for those of a foreign country to get employment here. Of the war disabled, 3,500, I understand that only some 300 have so far been found jobs.
This hard core of some 15,000 which is left, for whom employment has to be found, is an extreme difficulty, but it is a difficulty which must be met. If the hon. Member has his way and the Polish Resettlement Corps is done away with, what does he suppose would happen to these people? What does he suggest should be done with them? He can give me an answer. I suggest that, if the Polish Resettlement Corps is done away with before these people are absorbed into industry, the Government should set up some organisation to deal with them. We cannot so degrade these Poles who desire to work that they have to be maintained by public assistance. The Poles are an extremely proud people.

Mr. Tiffany: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me why

it is more degrading for a Pole than for a British subject to seek public assistance?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: It is equally degrading for both. But it is far more difficult for the Poles to obtain employment than it is for the British. When our men came back from the Forces, there were offices attached to the Ministry of Labour, so that they could get into contact with employers, etc., and there were also many voluntary organisations in which were experts in the matter of job finding. But for the Poles that is not so at all. They have to find employment through the ordinary channels of the Ministry of Labour. There is one organisation which assisted them, the Polish Ex-Combatants' Association, which was formed to deal with these hard cases and has done exceedingly good work. Each case is an individual one, and the right hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, agree with that. It requires special people to be able to place these hard cases.
This association, which has done excellent work, requires money. The Poles are not capable of going on for a long time subscribing to it, and very shortly, I am informed, it will have to close down. If that happens, it will be still more difficult for these men to find employment. I beg the Government to do something about that, to fill up the gap, to take some special action as was done with our own men, so that these hard core cases may be employed in industry. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that the Poles are only too willing and anxious to get work. The ordinary, normal human being hates doing nothing, and the Poles are as anxious as anyone else to stand on their own feet, hold their heads high, and say that they are not being a burden on this country which has been friendly to them, and I am sure will remain so.

9.10 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): I rise at this stage of the Debate—

Mr. Tiffany: On a point of Order. In view of the time, is it not rather unusual for the Minister to reply when there are other points of view to be put forward?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I am conducting this Debate. The Minister may at this stage conveniently intervene. It does not mean that the Debate is coming to an end.

Mr. Tiffany: I was of the opinion that the Debate might come to an end.

Mr. Stewart: I was about to say that I rise at this point in the Debate, not because of any wish that it should come to an end, because this subject is one of great interest on which, I know, many hon. Members have points of view to put forward, but for two reasons. First, I do not wish to let go unchallenged too long either the inaccuracies of which my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) was guilty, or the suggestion made in the more heated parts of his speech by the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) that there has been anything in the nature of serious obstruction from the trade union movement in this country in regard to placing the Poles in civilian employment.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I said that that was so at the beginning, and that is perfectly true; but I said afterwards that I was glad to know that matters had so much improved.

Mr. Stewart: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that he spoke at times with very considerable heat, and when he reads the account of his speech he may be a little surprised at some of the things he said and at the general impression created.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Not at all.

Mr. Stewart: It is to that general impression that I wish to come. Indeed, I hope that I shall succeed in lowering the general temperature of this Debate so far. It will not be at all in the interests of the Poles, or of the people of this country, among whom many are to live and work, if their destiny is to be the subject of violent controversy and prejudice. I believe it may be possible for me to provide the House with a more solid framework of facts and figures than has so far been advanced in this Debate, in the light of which hon. Members may be able to judge the issue.
First, what was the function of the Polish Resettlement Corps? At the end of the war, or shortly afterward, the British Government had under their control, side by side with their own proper Armed Forces, some 230,000 Poles. Of these, very shortly, 102,000 went back to Poland, and others have followed since:

so that, in round figures, about half of the total number have returned to Poland. I am speaking now of all the Poles under the control of the British Government, and not merely of the Polish Resettlement Corps. I shall come to those figures later. I stress that point about the numbers who returned to Poland lest it should be suggested that there has been any undue pressure or undue propaganda brought to bear on those men to prevent them from returning to their own country if they wished. It has always been the Government's view, and it was strongly assented to by my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston, that they should not be sent back if they did not wish to go. Indeed, it is not surprising, when we remember how their country had been blasted by invasion, that very many of those men, their homes destroyed, their families and friends dead, should feel that they must pass their future life in some other part of the world.
The Polish Resettlement Corps then came into being with the purpose of helping those men who did not return to Poland by arranging for their keep, their discipline, their administration, and for their disposal either by resettlement into civilian life and work in this country, or by emigration, or, in the more tragic cases, by hospital treatment—or by whatever form of disposal was most appropriate to them. There were also their wives and children, for whom medical services, welfare services, and education must be provided, and in those facts is to be found the answer to one of the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston: why are so many Ministries concerned? The answer to that is simple enough. The Poles are human beings; like British subjects they have the same variety of needs; and to argue that there should be a special Minister for Poles is rather like arguing that there should be a special Minister to deal with British subjects.
Suppose there were a Minister for Poles. If he had to provide for the education of Polish, children he would have to deal with that through the Ministry of Education; if he had to provide for those who are ill or infirm he would have to do so through the machinery of the Ministry of Health; if he had to arrange for the administration, pay, and discipline of those who are not yet absorbed, he


would have to do so through the machinery of one of the Service Departments; one of the largest parts of the work he would have to do would be arranging for placing them in industry, which he would have to do through the machinery of my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour.
I hope my hon. Friend will agree that in doing all this such a Minister would be a fifth wheel to the coach; inevitably all these Departments must be concerned, more particularly if we want, as does my hon. Friend, to see these men not segregated but made part of the British community. If that is so, the same departmental arrangements ought to provide for the education of Polish children as provide for the education of British children; and the same arrangements should be made for their sick as for ours. To have had from the outset a Minister for Poles, if one may so call him, would have been to make the assimilation of these men into the British community more difficult than was otherwise the case.
My hon. Friend asked particularly—and it is a question the answer to which is not obvious at first sight—why two Service Departments had been concerned; why the Air Ministry as well as the War Office, since both have a similar job to do: the holding, paying, administration, and discipline of the men while they are awaiting disposal. There was a very good reason for that. The Poles who have served in the Polish Air Force, a body very closely integrated with our own Air Force, wore Royal Air Force uniform and badges; the Air Force had already appropriate administrative machinery for dealing with their resettlement; and further, they were men who were qualified and trained in Royal Air Force trades, who while awaiting resettlement could do useful work, according to their qualifications, in the Royal Air Force itself. To have put them with the Army Poles under the War Office would have been to waste administrative machinery already at hand in the Air Ministry, and to have wasted these men's particular qualifications.
I do not propose to say anything further about the Poles under the control of the Air Ministry. All told, there

passed through Air Ministry hands some 12,000, and at the present time rather less than 1,000 remain. The House will appreciate that that has now become a small problem, and has been in effect a sort of miniature representation of the problem we have had to deal with at the War Office. In round terms, the Air Ministry problem has been about one-tenth the size of ours.

Mr. Rankin: Would my hon. Friend say whether that 1,000 is additional to or included in the 13,000 mentioned by the Secretary of State for War last Tuesday?

Mr. Stewart: The answer to that is both "Yes" and "No," because the figure given by my right hon. Friend last Tuesday did not include R.A.F. figures. On the other hand, I am glad to say that the figure mentioned by my right hon. Friend, although it was correct, is now out of date by some 2,000. The rate of resettlement and discharge from the Corps has proceeded at such a rate that for the figure of 13,000 we should now read a figure of 11,000, plus the figure of rather less than 1,000 under the control of the Air Ministry. That is the progress in one month.

Mr. Rankin: Might we assume, then, that the further information that the Corps will be wound up early in 1950 is also out of date?

Mr. Stewart: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will come to that point in a moment. With regard to the length of time which men may serve in the Corps, the terms of service have already been given to the House on more than one occasion. Men who joined the Corps prior to March, 1948, entered into a contract of service for two years; men who joined between March, 1948, and December, 1948, had a contract of service for one year. I could not understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston meant when he talked of an undertaking given that the Corps would be wound up by December last. I have a strong suspicion that he is confusing the Polish Resettlement Corps with the Polish Land Forces, the military body which was wound up in December last in accordance with statements previously made in this House.
I stress that because my hon. Friend was at great pains to argue that there had


been a radical change of policy in this matter. That is not so. The House has never been given to understand that the Polish Resettlement Corps would come to an end in December last. Anyone who had studied the history of the Corps and the problem it had to deal with would have realised that that was not a possibility. If we look at the terms of service—two years for those who entered up to May, 1948, and one year for those who entered up to December, 1948—it might appear that theoretically the Corps could continue in existence until May, 1950, when the very last group of men were discharged, but—

Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend give way for a moment? I had not the quotation at hand, but I have it here now. It is from column 1108 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is one of many answers given by my right hon. Friend—

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I should be greatly obliged if the hon. Member would speak up.

Mr. Rankin: I am very sorry. I will give an exact quotation, from only one of many answers, from the OFFICIAL REPORT. Replying to a Question, my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour said:
I think I may say that it is the Government's intention to wind up this Corps by the end of the year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1948; Vol. 452, c. 1108.]
that is, the Polish Resettlement Corps.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend will appreciate that that is a much more modified statement than the impression he gave the House earlier. We have repeatedly made it clear that, while one may have a hope, an intention and an aim, there is the limitation of the difficulty of placing some of these men and their contract of service. That brings me to the point—

Mr. Bramall: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but, before he leaves the question of the date, it is a rather odd fact that I had two Questions down today, one to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and one to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, on this very subject, and I got two entirely different answers. The Ministry of Labour informed me that the Corps would come to an end by the end of this year—presumably in December,

1949—which is an earlier date than my hon. Friend has now stated, whereas the answer from the War Office was that it could go on until October, 1950, which is a later date than that of May, 1950, which my hon. Friend has now stated.

Mr. Stewart: If my hon. Friend will allow me to continue, he will see the answer to that. I have already said in set terms that hon. Members will see from the dates I have given about the contract of service that theoretically the Corps might continue until May, 1950, when the last group of men would be discharged. I am now going on to the reason why we have no grounds for supposing that that theoretical final date will be the actual final date, but may expect something very much earlier. That is because of the progress already made and still being made in the dispersal of these men.
My hon. Friend who opened this Debate suggested that the rate of placing until recently had been satisfactory, and said that we must exceed what he thought would be a much slower rate of dispersal in the future. What has happened? If we look at those for whom the Polish Resettlement Corps has been responsible, the total number who have passed through our hands have been 103,000. Of those, in round figures, 8,500 have gone back to Poland, 9,500 have migrated to other countries, death has accounted for nearly 2,500, 3,500 have been discharged by the expiry of their contract of service. Hon. Members will notice what a small proportion that is of the whole. The majority of these men left the Corps because they got work well before their contract of service expired.
The figures I have mentioned so far account for 24,000. Now we have to note that 66,000 have been placed in productive work in industry, 1,600 have been placed as students, and 400 have entered the Armed Forces. That accounts for some 68,000, and hon. Members will see that we are left with a remainder, in round figures, of 11,000 as contrasted with the figure given recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the figure having shrunk by further discharges owing to the expiry of the contract, and by further placings in industry by a figure of about 2,000 in the last month.
In view of what has been said about the cost of the Corps to this country—and my hon. Friend produced a romantic


figure of pay which has no relation to the facts—may I say that these men are paid at rates between two-thirds and three-quarters of the pay of a British soldier of comparable rank; that is, if they are in receipt of full Polish Resettlement Corps rates; but the majority of the officers—about four-fifths of them—are now on what are known as supernumerary rates, which are again, in the senior ranks, some two-thirds of the full rate of Polish Resettlement Corps pay.
Against the cost of resettling these men—and it has been considerable—must be put the nearly 70,000 productive workers who have been added to the manpower of this country. This money has not been spent in a way that gives us no return. In some cases we have in industries and at points in our country where they are most vital, a solid block of productive workers. It is altogether wrong to suggest that the task of placing these men has been made unreasonably difficult by opposition on the part of the trade unions. It is no easy matter to get any body of workers—whether they are manual, skilled, unskilled or professional workers—to accept any new body of entrants into the industry. It says a great deal for the work of the Ministry of Labour and for the willingness of British workers themselves to help us solve this problem that we have achieved the rate of settlement and of placing that we have.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Before the hon. Gentleman finishes that point, will he state the amount which the Poles in industry render to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Income Tax? Is it £3 million? Also, those paid by the Resettlement Corps ought to pay Income Tax.

Mr. Stewart: I do not think I can answer that question. When these men leave the Resettlement Corps and go into civilian life, they are absorbed into the British community. One could make estimates of how much they pay in Income Tax but there is no machinery by which a precise answer could be found. It will be apparent that, since they are working and earning, they are subject to Income Tax in the same way as British subjects.
On the question of cost, my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston raised the question of certain funds belonging to units of the Polish Resettlement Corps and

said there was grave disquiet about their disposal. I do not believe there is any such disquiet. If my hon. Friend feels there is, however, I ask him to allay it by reading what I had the opportunity to say to the House on this matter as long ago as 20th February last year. He will find there that the whole matter was discussed on the instance of, I think, my hon. Friend the, Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall); that it was made clear that these funds had been properly applied in ways which redound to the advantage and benefit of Poles, and that regard had been paid, not only to those in this country but to those who had returned to Poland. There is no ground whatever for any disquiet about the use of those funds.

Mr. Rankin: May I make that explanation quite clear by saying that when it came to the question of the disposal of these welfare funds, there was a proper and fair proportion between the constituted Government in Poland and the organisations which remained in this country?

Mr. Stewart: I can assure my hon. Friend that if he will refer to the Debate which I have mentioned, he will see that not only was that so, but that the Polish Government got a very fair bargain indeed out of the settlement of those funds.
Whilst on the general question of the placing of these men in work and the cost, on the one hand, and the benefit, on the other hand, which they have been to this country, I should like to refer to the allegations made in certain quarters that these men are idling on public funds and are not anxious to secure work, and that the Government have not been sufficiently diligent in helping them to get work. The formidable figure I have quoted of the numbers that have been resettled is an answer to both these allegations. The work of seeking openings for these men, of making them known to the men and of seeing, if need be, that there is no unreasonable refusal by the men of jobs offered them, has been going on steadily by co-operation between the Ministry of Labour and the War Department. The Ministry of Labour has had the assistance of certain Polish officers who were well qualified to explain to the men what was required of them.
For some considerable time the Anglo-Polish boards, which will continue to


work, have been dealing with unreasonable refusals by the men of jobs offered to them. I would mention also that while men have been waiting to be placed, considerable use has been made of them by the War Department on work which very often, it is true, was of an unskilled character, which can be comparatively simply and easily done, but which, nevertheless, was valuable to us as part of the immense process of tidying up which faced the War Department at the end of the war.
My hon. Friend referred also the number of women. All told, 5,000 women have been going through the Polish Resettlement Corps, of whom about one-tenth, or a little more, remain in the Corps at present. Their particular problems, of course, have been somewhat different, but the general process has been much the same. My hon. Friend also asked me to say, and I say it most emphatically, that there are no armed Polish forces now in this country outside the Polish Resettlement Corps; even that, in its present form, is a military force only in name. How can the remainder, 11,300, be classified? If we classify them as officers and other ranks, rather less than half, about 5,000, are officers and I would altogether rebut the suggestion that it is regarded as a sine qua non in the Polish Resettlement Corps that every officer has to have a personal servant.

Mr. Rankin: My hon. Friend is completely twisting round the little by-play I made. I put it the other way about, that every ranker had his personal officer.

Mr. Stewart: I am glad to have that assurance from my hon. Friend. It has often been asked why there is this high proportion of officers. One reason is that among the officers were to be found a high proportion of the older men. It was on the officer that we very often had to rely for the organisation of these men, for the teaching of English to them, giving them training in some cases for work and explaining to them the type of jobs and for being, in fact, an interpreter to them of all the problems with which they were faced in a strange country. It was not unnatural, therefore, that as the Corps reached its closing stages, a high proportion of officers should be left. If many of these officers had gone out before, in one way or another we would

have been faced with a far more obstinate backlog of other ranks, whose placing in industry would have presented us with much more difficulty.
If we divide the men by age, we find that 5,000 are more than 45 years of age, and it is not necessary for me to stress what that means in difficulty of placing. If we divide them according to health, we find that 3,000 are in greater or lesser degree disabled and therefore in greater or lesser degree limited in the number of jobs they can accept. It may be asked, "What are they doing in a Resettlement Corps at all?" It is true there are some 500 of whom we are obliged to say it is extremely unlikely that they will ever be able to take work at any time, but is it to be suggested that our medical advisers could have told us two years in advance when these men would be fit for work? The remainder of the invalids will be fit for work, but will be restricted, as disabled persons inevitably are, in the range of jobs from which they can choose, and it would be unjust and inhumane to exclude them on that ground from the benefits of the Resettlement Corps.

Mr. H. Hynd: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the 500 will not be indefinitely continued on salaries proportionate to Army ranks?

Mr. Stewart: I can give an assurance that they will not be continued indefinitely, because how long they will be continued is laid down by contract of service, and that will be apparent from what I have said. Men do not enlist in the Corps indefinitely, but for a fixed term. It may be that, in some cases, a man was admitted to the Corps because we hoped to resettle him and he stays in for the whole contract of service because, subsequently, it is proved that he was more sick than was supposed and he is obliged to remain for the full length of his time. But if that were to happen to 500 men out of the 100,000 and more with whom we have dealt, I do not think that is a ground for criticism.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: What is the term of contract of service?

Mr. Stewart: I have stated it earlier; moreover I think it is well known to the House. In some cases it is two years,


in some cases one, according to when they came in. Of this remainder 2,000 are waiting to emigrate. I am happy to say from recent information I have received, that we shall be able to send away 800 of these intending emigrants in the very near future. The House will appreciate that in the case of intending emigrants we sometimes have to wait for shipping.
The number will decline by the further running out of the contract of service, and the number who leave the Corps in this way is now likely to grow. Let us suppose for a moment that there was no other way out of the Corps than by expiry of service, that from now on there were no placings in industry and no emigration. Even if that were so, by the mere expiry of time the Corps would be down to a figure of about half its present strength by April, and down to about 2,000 by the end of September. In fact, that supposition is far from the truth. Not only will 2,000 emigrate, but placings are still proceeding at the rate of about 1,000 a month.
We are left with the residue of about 11,000, which is 2,000 less than a month ago, and even by expiry of contract of service alone that number would be ruthlessly cut down. In addition to that, there are 2,000 intending emigrants and placings at the rate of about 1,000 a month. If hon. Members will consider those facts it will be apparent that the days of this Corps are numbered. We can say that in the matter of a few months this problem will have ceased to be one of any size. After that we may be left with small groups of men whose claim on our pity I think no one will dispute, but there is no question of this problem persisting as a major one beyond the end of this year. It will cease to be a major problem much sooner than that—in a matter of a few months.
I expressed the hope that what I had to say might lower the temperature of the Debate. Looking back upon what I have said, I am afflicted by a feeling that I may not have fulfilled that charitable purpose. However, I would at least ask hon. Members on both sides of the House, many of whom are interested in this problem, to give their consideration to the framework of facts and figures which I have endeavoured to lay before

the House. I suggest that we have, on the whole, been able to deal with this matter in a way which has met our two obligations. I refer to the obligation, on the one hand, to the Poles to see that they were not left completely helpless and destitute, bearing in mind the services for which we are indebted to them; and on the other hand the obligation to our own people to see that just as we resent any British subject trying to live without working, on the backs of the rest of the community, we do not permit a Pole to do the same.
I would not dispute that among 100,000 or more men there must be some who have abused the arrangements and the hospitality which we have provided, but I ask hon. Members not to be led away by the attempts which have been made in some quarters to sensationalise particular cases. My hon. Friends will remember the propaganda which was rife in certain sections of the Press in 1920 on the subject of abuses of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and how it was common form in certain quarters, by picking out particular abuses, to suggest that the entire British working class were endeavouring to live in idleness on public funds. I am sorry to say that some of the Press comments that have been made in some quarters on the Polish Resettlement Corps bear an ugly resemblance to the propaganda of that period. I believe that if we look at the story as a whole, we shall see that these attacks are not justified, and that although there must inevitably have been some mistakes, we have carried out our handling of this problem with due regard to our obligations both to the Poles and the people of this country.

Orders of the Day — OPENCAST COALMINING

9.45 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: It is perhaps a somewhat far cry from the Polish Resettlement Corps to opencast coal, but I think there is a connection in that the present Secretary of State for War had a considerable interest at one time in opencast coalmining. Tonight I wish to bring to the attention of the House one or two points regarding opencast coalmining which are giving a good deal of concern, not merely to the farming community which they do affect very


closely, but also to the general public. Before raising these points I think it is essential that we should have in mind a few basic facts on the subject of opencast coal, because there are a good many people who misunderstand the situation. The Minister of Fuel has recently published a Digest for 1946–47 which gives in considerable detail figures which I do not think have received the publicity they deserve.
On 15th January this year there were according to my reading, just over 13 million tons of deep-mine coal in distributed stocks in Great Britain. That is about 2 million tons fewer than at the same time last year. In addition, there are just over 1 million tons of opencast coal, as compared with a little less than 200,000 tons at the same time last year. Of that 1 million tons of opencast coal about 300,000 tons is classed in the Ministry of Fuel and Power weekly coal statistics as being inferior, but over 800,000 out of the million is classed as being saleable. I can only suppose therefore that the other 300,000 tons is unsaleable.
From these figures I think we are entitled to deduce that the proportion of opencast coal now being put into stock is going up considerably. Looking at the first section of 1948, which is the last date which appears in the Digest I have referred to, the amount of stock of opencast coal at the beginning of the year started at 140,000 tons and dropped as low as 90,000 in February. Since then it has been steadily going up and in June it was 1,110,000. The deep-mined distributed stocks meanwhile have fallen from 15 million-odd tons in January to 14 million in June. The first question I wish to ask is whether it is now the policy of the Ministry to put to stock the inferior or unsaleable section of the opencast coal produced in this country, and build up the stock-in-hand figure for the public benefit, from coal which is really virtually unusable?
In October, 1947, it was announced that opencast coal would be producing 50 million tons by the end of 1951 and that 50,000 acres, in addition to the 35,000 already requisitioned, would be taken over by 1951. Later on, the Ministry of Agriculture stated that 79,389 acres of agricultural land would be used for the purpose by 1951. Opencast coalmining, began in 1942, and during

that year it produced only 1,100,000 tons of coal. Today it is producing the best part of ten times that amount, or more. I think we should ask ourselves how is that coal being used? According to the latest figures we have, we find that in 1947, 31,000 tons went to the gas industry; three million tons to the electricity industry; 135,400 to the railways; 55,900 to the coke ovens; 4,600,000-odd went to industrial undertakings and 1,376,700 went to coal merchants for domestic consumers.
I think that the first fact which we have to admit is that opencast coal is being made good use of, that it is important and is helping British industry to keep going through a very difficult period. It is important, from the point of view of the farming community, that that fact should be realised, but it is a fact that the areas that produce this coal have been concentrated in the past in the North-Eastern and North Midland Regions, and these two regions take in the West and East Ridings of Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland, which are areas which not merely have produced the most opencast coal but are also areas of considerable agricultural value.
The Ministry's Digest leads us to suppose that new areas are being sought, and whereas, in the first quarter of 1947, there were 23 sites in the North Midland Region, at the same time last year there were none, and, in the case of the North Eastern Region, while there were 22 in 1947, they have come down to five or six at the beginning of last year. Last week, we were told by the Minister of Agriculture, in reply to a Question which I put to him, that 6,500 more acres of agricultural land are to be taken over this year, and another 6,000 would be going back into cultivation.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary say where these areas are to be, and where the 6,500 acres to be taken over are situated? Can he give an assurance—and this is my most important question—that no farms are to be taken over, either wholly or partly, whose occupiers have already been told that they could go ahead in planning their crop rotation without fear of requisitioning? That is a very important question from the farmer's point of view, because it has happened in the past, and particularly in


the time of the present Minister's predecessor, that farmers who had been told their land would not be requisitioned had requisition notices served upon them.
Can the hon. Gentleman also say what additional acreage now has to be taken over owing to the greater depth to which contractors have to go in order to get coal, as the seams nearer the surface are worked out? It used to be an average of three acres for every acre which was to produce coal, but I suspect that the figure is now five acres or even above that. Further, I would ask whether the 6,500 acres includes only land from which it is actually hoped to have coal produced, or whether it includes all the land on which the overburden will be spilt?
This leads me on to costs. I have been told on good authority that the worst basis upon which it was formally agreed to be worth while to go in for getting coal was that if we had one ton of coal for 20 tons of overburden it would be in the national interest. But that was in the days when the coal seams were nearer the surface, and, to the best of my information, the seams are very much deeper. Therefore, I imagine that that proportion is far bigger than 20 to one. Will the Parliamentary Secretary say what that proportion is, and what the cost per ton is going to be? In 1947, the Minister gave me the figure of the cost as 45s. 8d. per ton for opencast coal, including requisitioning, machinery and everything involved. That worked out, in comparison with the selling price, at a dead loss of 9s. 8d. per ton; in other words, opencast coal was being subsidised to the extent of 9s. 8d. per ton.
I should like to know what is the latest edition of these figures. Most of the machinery comes from the United States, or did so, and I have heard that as much as £2 million worth of dollars was spent by Sir Lindsay Parkinson's representative in the United States, on the authority of the Minister. We should like to know whether, with the dollar shortage at the present time, dollars are to be spared this year, and how many, and whether this is going on until the end of opencast coal-mining, and whether we now have all the machinery that we want. According to the Minister's figures, the amount of machinery fluctuates and I do not understand why that is so. Does it mean that

the machinery gets worn out and cannot be replaced at once; does it mean that it goes out of commission for a time and then comes back again into commission or not, because these figures change month by month and it is a little strange why they should?
What are the figures for the beginning and the end of this year, and what will be the cost in dollars and sterling for machinery? Are we manufacturing any machinery at home? I believe that we are doing a little, and that the smaller types of draglines are being manufactured at home. I am interested in this because I know two people closely associated with my constituency who are actual contractors in this matter, and therefore I am most anxious we should ensure that the best contractors are used. I believe that they would both be good at the job.
My other interest is in the agricultural side, and I think that it is only fair to the Minister to tell him that the late Lord Fitzwilliam drove me to Wentworth Woodhouse and that I had a look round in that area. Since the present Minister has been in office, I certainly have no complaint about the way in which individual cases which I have brought to his attention have been dealt with. I wish I could say the same about the present Secretary of State for War when he was in that office. There is no doubt in my mind that there was a deliberate personal attack on the late Lord Fitzwilliam by the present Secretary of State for War when Minister of Fuel and Power and by Lindsay Parkinson, Limited, and I think an attempt was made to put about the impression that the late Lord Fitzwilliam was only interested in the amenities of Wentworth Woodhouse, which happens to be one of the largest mansions in the country. Having gone round his farm with him and met his tenants, I can say that I wish that all landlords were as good as he was.
I believe that it was one of the most vile campaigns ever launched to say that he was only interested in Wentworth Woodhouse itself. I have seen some of those farms, and when I read an article in the "Farmer and Stock Breeder" this week under the heading "I Was Horrified," I can share the view of the writer of that article. It does strike horror in one's heart when one sees opencast


coalmining in progress, but the Ministry tried to give the impression that when restoration takes place, all would be well and the land just as good as ever it was.
Farmers are not slow to respond when any call is made upon them, but they are entitled to expect not merely that the full facts and reasons for what has to be done are given to them but that they get a fair estimate of the exigencies that demand those sacrifices from them. Taking an average Yorkshire farm, for every acre requisitioned we lose 7.1 tons of potatoes, 8.8 cwt. of wheat, 17.2 cwt. of barley, 16.5 cwt. of oats. That is a big sacrifice to make at a time when the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food are imploring farmers to grow more food. With regard to milk it has been calculated on results that 63 gallons per acre per year are lost when a certain type of land is taken over. When the Ministry have tried to soothe the public mind as to the excellence of restored land, I ask them just to realise that it is not——

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

Major Legge-Bourke: I do ask the Minister to realise it is not quite all it seems, and that even the Ministry of Agriculture's representatives are prepared to give rather a different opinion. I am going to read a letter I have received containing the views of a Ministry of Agriculture representative on a farm which had been restored. This is what the representative said:
It is a physical impossibility to restore the surface as was originally promised to all. Although the soil and sub-soil were supposed to be properly stacked, that did not occur in practice. In any case, the action of the wind and weather would necessarily wash away much of the humus and remove the mineral salts which gave the soil most of its value. Although the restoration and subsequent reseeding would produce a reasonable looking herbage and give the land a grazing value of 50s. an acre such value would be there for only two years, and after that the land would be in very bad condition, with no proper drainage and a bad mixture of soils, sub-soil coming to the surface so that the land would be waterlogged in wet weather. The Ministry of Agriculture were indeed making experiments to overcome these difficulties but they had not solved the problem yet.

I do not believe they have solved the problem yet, and I know that there are farmers whose land has been restored who would heartily agree with that representative's opinion.
I hope we shall be able to get a better arrangement than now exists between the three Ministries involved in this question. There are in fact four, but I am leaving out the Ministry of Works. The Ministry of Fuel and Power, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning seem to me to be at loggerheads. Now and again there is a clash between the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and the Ministry of Fuel and Power in one place, and in another a clash between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Fuel and Power.
I have been told that what has happened ever since the fuel crisis in the winter of 1946–47, is that the Ministry of Fuel and Power have over-riding power over the other Departments, and that nothing the other Ministries can do will stop them if they wish to take over another area. It is utterly wrong that this should happen when the Ministry of Agriculture are calling on producers to produce everything they can. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should seriously consider that this matter ought to be decided not by the Ministry of Fuel and Power but by the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for this is really a matter of dollars versus sterling. It is a question of whether it is more profitable to import food, or more profitable to produce coal from land which could produce the food here. I feel that the situation has changed considerably since the winter of 1946–47 and that the priority which the food industry is getting should be considerably greater.
I am not, of course asking, nor does any farmer contend for a moment, that with the present situation in deep-face coal we could scrap opencast coal mining, but there are certain places, Wentworth Woodhouse being one, where quite definitely the time has come when agriculture should have priority over the Ministry of Fuel and Power.
When we get this land restored finally there is an impression that all will be well but it takes four years for the agricultural executives to run the farms. So many of


the farms are typified in this letter from Glamorgan. This is a paragraph from a farmer's letter:
I am wondering what I can do about it when they de-requisition the land. It was a lovely dairy farm. They were fine fields with fine banks and hedges surrounding them. Now they are all one. I was only a tenant farmer when I gave up on reaching three score years and ten. I saved up a little property for myself and my wife in our old age, but now I shall not be able to ask the same amount for the land.
We may all have different opinions about how savings should be effected, but I do not think there is any better way than to put savings into land, and for a man to be able to settle down on his own plot of England—or Wales, as in this case.
It may not be realised by those who believe that restoration is always perfect that some farmers suffer not only while their land is under requisition but when it is returned to them because it is in very poor shape compared with the state in which it was when it was handed over to the Ministry. When the Minister glibly says that 6,000 acres will be returned, I ask in what condition will they be? Will they be in the condition of the land of the farmer whose letter I have read, or will it be land in as good a condition as restoration can make it? We have to realise that the deeper the excavator goes, the more overburden is dug up; the more overburden there is, the greater is the acreage for tipping the spoil; the greater the spoil; the greater the deterioration of the humus and the greater the deleterious effects on land drainage.
Two years ago it was indicated that drift mining would be adopted as often as possible. How many of the sites now requisitioned could be so worked? How many drift mines are there in Great Britain today? That I cannot discover from the Digest to which I have referred. The number of underground miners available for opencast coalmining now exceeds 10,243 men. It is the highest figure yet, and is 2,000 higher than it was when the present Government came into office. Are we to put more men into this industry? If so, what is to be the permissible peak?
Finally, I would ask, What is the relationship between the opencast coal-mining industry and the National Coal Board? Is it on the basis of the famous

story that the National Coal Board sent to the opencast coalmining industry the message, "Leave no stone unturned. It is never too slate to burn"? Is that the relationship or not? I realise that the opencast industry comes directly under the Ministry, and I suspect—indeed, I know—that there is no love lost between the two. Is this producing healthy rivalry and competitive results, or is it increasing the rancour in the industry?
My own feeling has always been that opencast mine working became necessary during the war only because of the fatal mistake made of calling up miners to the Forces. I believe it to be a truth which one day will penetrate the minds of the most obstinate of hon. Members opposite that their own party, some of them aided and abetted by the Communists, have not merely for 30 years stirred up the industry with class hatred and false propaganda, but have also involved England, Scotland and Wales in wanton desecration of our farms, at a time when every acre farmed is a step nearer to national solvency.
Opencast mining is expensive, and it appears to be growing more so. The Minister on Thursday last stated that coal was 30 times more valuable than the food the mined land would grow. I am sure that was a random opinion not based on facts. The fact is that the country is perturbed about losing any more acres with a food potential, to keep up bogus stock figures for the Government's statistics. People are prepared to accept what they feel to be necessary, but they are far from convinced that there should be so large a gap as from six million to 16 million tons in the target for 1952 for coal, and that part of it to be got from deep mining. It means, of course, that opencast workings have to go on producing between six million and 16 million tons of coal per year if we are for once to hit a target—a target of between 246 million and 256 million tons a year by 1952.
I have asked some probing questions which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to answer. At any rate, I hope that he will at least do his best to reassure the farming community that the sacrifice they have to make—which is indeed a real one—is worth while and necessary and not merely one to keep the thing looking all right on paper.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has performed a public service in raising the question of the damage which is being done by opencast coalmining. I do not want it to go forth from this House that hon. Members are opposed to opencast mining simply on the ground that they represent deep coal miners. In the Opencast Mining Branch of the Ministry of Fuel and Power there seems to prevail the idea that anybody who ventures a criticism of the system, method, and policy of that branch is prejudiced against the branch of opencast mining. That is not the case. But we are very much concerned about the method they are adopting, first because of the depth at which they are working coal by the opencast method, and secondly—and I say this with all respect to them—because of the lack of competence we have seen evidenced in the restoration of land after the coal has been extracted.
During the Summer and Autumn Recesses, I spent a great deal of time visiting opencast sites in my constituency. Unfortunately for myself and the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely, we represent constituencies where the mineral coal is found. In my constituency there are seven urban district councils, and at the moment opencast operations are taking place in five of them. That will give the House and the Ministry some idea of the trouble I have with the Opencast Mining Branch of the Ministry. Time and time again I have approached that branch, at 20, Upper Brook Street, to try to solve some of the problems with which we are confronted.
In my constituency there is a very ancient hall, Winstanley Hall, which at some future date may be treated as a place of historic interest. It is situated in a woodland surrounded by 5,000 acres. On that estate there are 15 farms, all of which have been directly or indirectly affected by the Opencast Mining Branch of the Ministry. As the hon. and gallant Member said, there are three Government departments concerned: the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. I have negotiated with all three Departments. I am not very much concerned about the interest manifested by the Ministry of Town and

Country Planning, but I am very much concerned about the interest that ought to be taken by the Ministry of Agriculture after the coal is extracted.
Suppose, after the coal has been extracted, one goes to the Ministry of Fuel and Power and says: "Look at these 200 or 300 acres; would you call this satisfactory restoration of the land after extracting the coal?" Immediately they reply, "We are not concerned about that; that is not our pigeon." One goes to the Ministry of Agriculture, and they appear to have no knowledge of what is taking place. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power that there should be closer co-operation between the two Departments so that when the coal is extracted the land, even if it cannot be made just as it was before the coal was extracted, can be restored as nearly as possible to its previous condition. Closer co-operation is what we desire. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture was here when this Debate was about to commence, but he has left the Chamber. I suppose that his attention will be drawn to what has been said not only by me but by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely.
At the moment, the depths to which we are working in opencast mining vary from 70 feet to 170 feet. Nobody can tell me that it is economical to work coal at a depth of 170 feet. From the point of view of the over-burden of carting away and putting the top soil on one side, it is an impossibility for any Government Department to work coal economically at that depth and at the same time give us the assurance that they will restore the land to something like what it was before they started operations. In my constituency is a small colliery known as the Summerdale Colliery. That colliery has been set out to work a seam which the Ministry of Fuel and Power Opencast Mining Branch have decided to work, despite the advice given them by practical men. It is sheer stupidity for men who have no practical experience of the underground working and mining of coal to ride roughshod over the opinions expressed by practical miners who know what they are talking about. This proposal will do two things. It will increase the cost of the coal which is extracted


and it will cause Summerdale Pit to become uneconomical by the time it reaches the coal which is now being won by opencast mining. That is a very serious proposition for the Minister's officials to pursue, having regard to the advice given to them on the spot.
I had a lot more to say, but my time is up. I beg the Minister to get the closer co-operation which is absolutely essential if the land is to be restored to something approximating to its condition before opencast mining started. There must be closer co-operation, and his Department cannot ignore it. If they do, the Debate which has taken place will take place again in an entirely different manner. I plead with the Minister, as I pleaded with the officials of the Opencast Mining Branch, to pay due regard to the districts in which they are working, for the county of Lancashire has been giving the country deep-mined coal for over 405 years. The effect of that has been tremendous. The guts have been torn out of Lancashire and now the skeleton is being torn limb from limb. I beg the Minister to see that these things are prevented, because prevention can be accomplished if there is a commonsense approach to this problem.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Vane: May I ask the Minister one question? When he considers the opposition of the Ministry of Agriculture to certain land being taken for opencast mining, will he consider the interests of forestry as well as of food production, and will he note that last week the Board of Trade took steps, never before taken in peace time in this country, to protect our remaining stocks of timber? If he thinks that timber must go, will he not smash it up with bulldozers, as happened in Warwickshire last year, because if anybody other than a Government Department did that, they would be in prison for many months.

10.21 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): It is unfortunate that only 10 minutes remain in which to reply to the lengthy—

Mr. T. Brown: We had less.

Mr. Robens: That is not true. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) did not complain of the time he had, and I do not complain, but he raised many points and it will be a physical impossibility for me to reply to all of them in the time that is left. I will cover as many as I can, and will communicate with him on the others that I cannot answer now. First, I ought to say to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), in answer to what he said about stupid opencast people overriding somebody who knows more about the job, that he met our opencast officials with me and we discussed a number of his cases. I thought we had convinced him how reasonable we are and that it was really necessary to do the job we are doing in his constituency.

Mr. Brown: rose—

Mr. Robens: Ripping up agricultural land to get coal is not our idea of the best way to get coal under normal circumstances, and it is only forced upon us by the urgency of the situation. On that point, the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely did not say that we should not do it, but hoped that it would tail off quickly. That is what we want to do, because the sooner we can get to the position of getting the coal that this nation needs from deep mining, the better pleased will be the Ministry of Fuel and Power. In a small country like ours, where agricultural land is so valuable, it is important that we should not upset agricultural values. We are faced with the fact at present that we must have the coal, but the amount of coal that will have to be obtained by opencast operations in future is not as high as the hon. and gallant Member suggested. We have produced figures to the O.E.E.C. showing that we shall move up to 15 million tons a year in the 1951–1952 period and then it will begin to tail off. It is true that since 1942 we have taken up the fairly large acreage of some 45,000 acres. That is 0.14 per cent. of the total agricultural land of the country.
It is also true that there is a concentration in certain localities. Obviously, from a geological point of view that is inevitable. Indeed it is true that in three-quarters of the counties there are no opencast workings, so inevitably this great burden falls upon those that are left. At


the present moment there are 35,503 acres of land under requisition. Of that, 31,895 acres are agricultural land, but that is not all being used at the moment for opencast coal. Some 12,147 acres of that were under restoration at the end of 1948, and the actual acreage used for coal production at present is 19,748 acres.

Mr. Vane: And how much woodland?

Mr. Robens: That would include any woodlands being worked at present, but I cannot give the actual acreage. All the requisitioned land includes that land used for the stacking of overburden, so there are no acreages to be added from that point of view, and the rate of restoration is now at the rate of present requisitioning. It was clear that we had to catch up with this from the commencement of the scheme.
A number of questions have been asked and I should like to run through them rapidly. Both hon. Members asked whether there was proper liaison between those Departments which had some concern in this matter and whether, in fact, the Ministry of Fuel and Power overrode other Departments. There is no question of overriding. It is a question of discussing the relative merits with the Departments concerned. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is smiling as much as to suggest that, probably, we conduct this arguing with something like a weapon in our hands. I can assure him, however, that when we are dealing with, for instance, agricultural land, the Ministry of Agriculture obviously do not want any land to go out of production, but clearly they understand that some land must go out of production. Therefore, officials of the Departments get together to see how best the land can be worked with the least upset and disturbance to the farmer.
We take very great trouble and go to many times the actual cost to ensure that a site is worked in such a way that a farmer is left with a sizeable piece of land and that the move over after restoration is carried through smoothly. Arrangements of that character, while more costly, are carried out in an endeavour to get the views of the Ministry of Agriculture on behalf of the farmer. We do

everything we can to preserve for the farmer as much land as possible, very often by going out of our way at greater cost and by more inconvenient means. Despite all this, it is, of course, true that we continue to take agricultural land, but it is not a question of overriding. We try earnestly to meet the wishes and views of the Ministries of Agriculture and Town and Country Planning. Broadly speaking, it is by meeting those views that we have been able to progress as expeditiously as we have done with opencast coal production.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the stock position and to the 1.1 million tons of opencast coal at present undistributed. He asked whether we stocked inferior coal and broke down that definition into saleable and inferior coal. We do not, of course, stock inferior coal as such. The distinction between inferior and saleable, or good, coal, is merely a matter of degree, taking into account also the purpose for which it is intended. Some power stations. for example, can take a much more inferior type of coal than other users or, indeed, other power stations. The distinction between the two, therefore, is a matter of degree. In any case, these stocks have been steadily lifted at the rate of about 40,000 tons a week, and the recent mild weather has had its effect upon lifting it from stock. We have no good reasons to expect that in due course the whole of that stock will not be disposed of.

Mr. Assheton: Is it certain that those stocks will be completely disposed of?

Mr. Robens: We have no reason to suppose that we shall not be able to dispose of it. There is, in fact, a market for what might be termed inferior coal. Certain power stations are able to burn it and its final disposal depends upon the length of time taken to clear the stocks.

Mr. Assheton: Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that some of it, at any rate, will never be disposed of?

Mr. Robens: Some of it, perhaps, might not be disposed of. It is very much a question of boiler technique and


what can be burned. If it is coal which can, in fact be burned, I do not think one need be so pessimistic as to think that it would not be disposed of, although some of it which does not find a ready market may be held for a considerable time.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.